Quality and Patient Safety Metrics: Developing a Structured Program for Improving Patient Care in the Department of Medicine at The Ottawa Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of quality and patient safety in academic medicine, challenges remain with ensuring physician participation in quality assurance and quality improvement efforts, such as lack of compensation and enabling resources. An organizational culture that includes physician leadership and a supportive infrastructure is needed to encourage physician backing of quality and patient safety initiatives. APPROACH: The authors describe the development of a robust quality and patient safety program in the Department of Medicine at The Ottawa Hospital over the past 7 years and highlight how the department changed its organizational culture by prioritizing quality and patient safety and establishing the necessary infrastructure to support this program. Program development was characterized by 4 overarching themes: incentives, administrative structure and physician leadership, training and support, and system enhancements. OUTCOMES: As a result of the program, the department broadly implemented a standardized framework for conducting quality committee meetings and morbidity and mortality rounds and reviewing patient safety incidents and patient experience across its 16 divisions. This has led to 100% departmental compliance on corporate quality assurance metrics each year (e.g., regular multidisciplinary divisional quality committee meetings), along with physician participation in formal quality improvement initiatives that align with larger corporate goals. NEXT STEPS: The authors reflect on lessons learned during the implementation of the program and the essential elements that contributed to its success. Next steps for the program include using a centralized repository of quality and patient safety data, including patient safety incident dashboards, to encourage greater divisional collaboration on quality improvement initiatives and continuous institutional learning over time. Another important avenue will be to create an academic hub for excellence in quality and a formal approach to reward and promote physicians for their quality work.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".