Resident and Attending Physician Perceptions of a Quality and Safety Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to identify opportunities for improvement of an Internal Medicine (IM) resident quality improvement (QI)/patient safety (PS) program at an academic teaching hospital. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 residents and 6 attending physicians, which were analyzed from an inductive and thematic lens using NVivo software. Ethics was approved by the institution’s Research Ethics Board (File #: 6026140). Four themes emerged from this analysis. Residents and attending physicians agreed on (i) integrating QI/PS knowledge and skills into practice using active learning approaches. However, there was concern that requiring QI project completion through (ii) standardization of QI/PS education could create a barrier to clinical research required for sub-specialization. There was agreement that the (iii) QI/PS culture within the IM program was supportive and that a lack of safe reporting efficiency within the hospital, along with interprofessional discord, could cause (iv) external barriers to QI/PS training. By integrating these findings, evidence-informed and low-resource solutions could be incorporated into the QI/PS curriculum that uses minimal preparation requirements, and fulsome conversation-based exploration of QI/PS techniques within real-world clinical cases.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".