Attributes and Actions Required to Advance Quality and Safety in Hospitals: Insights from Nurse Executives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To lead effectively within their organizations, nurse executives must possess quality and safety literacy and be able to engage and motivate clinicians to participate in safety and quality initiatives. Given the paucity of research in Canada, a study was undertaken to explore nurse executives' understanding of the key concepts and strategies associated with patient safety and quality improvement, and their engagement with patient safety and quality improvement in their hospitals and healthcare systems. This study used an exploratory qualitative design with a content analysis approach on 20 nurse executives working in hospitals in Ontario. Three key themes emerged from the narrative data set including: (1) being a strategic and system thinker while possessing the emotional intelligence to influence staff; (2) building credibility and relationships with point-of-care staff, board of directors, and leadership team and (3) creating a culture of safety and high reliability. Study findings can be useful in informing future learning opportunities for nurse executives and nurses leaders at all levels to enhance their quality and safety literacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".