The Design and Evaluation of a Joint Health and Safety Committee Education Programme in the Healthcare Sector in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of the long-term existence of joint committees, injury rates appear to be increasing in the healthcare sector. The purpose of this study was to deliver and evaluate a province-wide joint committee (JC) education program for healthcare institutions BC. The joint committee education program was designed with input from labour and management representatives and expert advice from compensation, union, and human resources consultants. The training program was designed to: 1) ensure that committee members fully understood their roles and responsibilities as outlined under the Workers' Compensation Act and Regulations, 2) increase the problem solving skills of committee members, 3) improve the committee's ability in identifying and resolving health and safety concerns in their workplace. Between June and December 2000, 1,206 JC members, (employed at 262 different healthcare facilities), were trained. An evaluation survey, designed as a retrospective before and after study, to evaluate whether the JC training sessions had produced changes in committee functioning was conducted from 7 to 15 months after the training (during the period July 2001 to September 2001) by two trained telephone interviewers. While the level of JC functioning was quite high most institutions prior to training the evaluation survey found large and statistically significant improvements in JC functioning. A 39.5% increase in the proportion of respondents reporting “high” marks for JC effectiveness in identifying hazards and an increase of 50% reporting “high” marks for understanding the JCs role were observed. Increases in the proportion of respondents reporting “high” marks for accuracy of JC minutes, specificity of recommendations, and perhaps most importantly, degrees of cooperation among JC members were in the 20 percent range. IN conclusion this province-wide training of JC members in healthcare institutions increased the functioning of JCs in key areas.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".