Win‐win: Summer QI programme for medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most undergraduate medical students (UMS) do not receive any formal exposure to quality improvement (QI) efforts in healthcare during the entirety of their undergraduate programme. This is despite the rising interest amongst UMS and the unique potential that UMS hold as an innovator unencumbered by previous biases. To explore this, we implemented an undergraduate training programme that provides experiential QI education. APPROACH: The 15-week Summer Healthcare Improvement Programme (SHIP) was established in 2017, supported by a regional physician QI leadership coalition, a QI consultant preceptor who is linked to both the local university and health organisation and an UMS leadership group. Students were assigned QI projects that were aligned with the health organisation's purpose and scope. Students co-led the project to completion with mentorship from both physician QI leaders, and residents. Student competencies were formatively assessed by completing QI activities and a programme survey. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2019, 19 students completed 22 QI projects, academic posters and publications, and all received QI certification. The majority (72%) of students felt involvement in SHIP increased their QI knowledge and skills, 90% believed SHIP would benefit their peers, and 71% of students felt it directly applied to their future careers. DISCUSSION: Benefits of the programme were threefold: provided students with early experiential QI exposure, provided student QI leaders who possess dedicated time and effort to complete projects over the summer months and provided a physician QI learning continuum implemented with minimal to no additional cost to either the university or health organisation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".