The Effects of Quality Assurance System Implementation on Work Well-Being and Patient Safety: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic monitoring of work atmosphere and patient safety incidents is a necessary part of a quality assurance system, particularly an accredited system like the Joint Commission International (JCI). How the implementation of quality assurance systems affects well-being at work and patient safety is unclear. Evidence shows that accreditation improves workplace atmosphere and well-being. Thus, the assumption that an increase in employees' well-being at work improves patient safety is reasonable. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the protocol for monitoring the effects of implementing the quality assurance system of JCI at Orton Orthopedic Hospital on employees' well-being (primary outcome) and patient safety (secondary outcome). METHODS: Quantitative (questionnaires and register data) and qualitative (semistructured interviews) methods will be used. In addition, quantitative data will be collected from register data. Both quantitative and register data will be analyzed. Register data analysis will be performed using generalized linear models with an appropriate distribution and link function. The study timeline covers the time before, during, and after the start of the accreditation process. The collected data will be used to compare job satisfaction, as a part of the well-being questionnaire, and the development of patient safety during the accreditation process. RESULTS: The results of the quality assurance system implementation illuminate its possible effects on the patient's safety and job satisfaction. The repeatability and internal consistency reliability of the well-being questionnaire will be reported. Data collection will begin in May, 2024. It will be followed by data analysis and the results are expected to be published by 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The planned study will contribute to the evaluation of the effects of JCI accreditation in terms of well-being at work and patient safety. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45200.
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 | 0.036 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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".