From Theory to Practice: Development and Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Curriculum for Psychiatry Residents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quality improvement (QI) is a systematic approach used to analyze and address problems in healthcare. Evidence of its success has led some national regulatory bodies to require QI education in residency training programs. However, limited work to date has demonstrated how residency programs can integrate best practices in QI education to design their own curriculum. This study describes the implementation and evaluation of a new QI curriculum, grounded in a theoretical model of how QI education works, for Canadian psychiatry residents. METHODS: PGY-2 and PGY-4 psychiatry residents received a 2.5-h mixed didactic and simulation-based QI workshop as a part of the 2021-2022 academic curriculum. Their knowledge and attitudes toward QI were assessed using the QI Knowledge Application Tool Revised (QIKAT-R) and the Beliefs and Attitudes subscale of the Beliefs, Attitudes, Skills, and Confidence in QI (BASiC-QI). RESULTS: Eleven of 12 residents (92%) who completed the curriculum participated in the study. Average QIKAT-R scores improved from 4.45 to 7.00. Average BASiC-QI Beliefs and Attitudes subscale scores increased by 5.55 points. Residents reported enjoying QI and an increased desire to participate in future QI projects. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how a programme theory of QI education can be used to develop an effective, locally-tailored curriculum. This approach can be replicated by other educators to develop or improve QI curricula.
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.
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 | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it