MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296078720 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2022.26891

Enhancing Hospital Accreditation Practices: Building and Implementing a Continuous Readiness Model

2022· review· en· W4296078720 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicole Thomson, Kimberly L. Hunter, Rani Srivastava, Masooma Hassan, Leila Anderson, Lydia Sequeira

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMental Health Research CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthThompson Rivers UniversityCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationProcess managementQuality managementProcess (computing)Continuous assessmentGrounded theoryBest practiceContinuous educationQuality (philosophy)Knowledge managementBusinessMedical educationOperations managementComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyEngineeringManagementQualitative researchManagement systemSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accreditation Canada is moving from a three-to-five-year assessment cycle to a continuous assessment program. As our organization shifted to a culture of continuous readiness, we aimed to develop a model that would support a seamless transition. To develop our model, we completed a literature review, environmental scan and an organizational needs assessment. Grounded in quality management theory, our continuous readiness model includes overarching supporting infrastructure and tasks, tools and initiatives to embed the principles of continuous readiness across the organization. Our model provides organizations with a practical, evidence-informed process to support a state of continuous readiness for accreditation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207