Integrating standardized patient safety and quality competencies in pharmacy curriculum: Evaluation of the impact on student development and professional identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Improving patient safety and quality of care is a national healthcare priority. While changes in healthcare systems help to address some concerns in this area, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of healthcare professionals play a role as well. Health professions education programs have a responsibility to ensure comprehensive patient safety and quality training. Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the impact of integrating standardized safety and quality competencies from an evidence‐based framework in a patient safety and quality course within a Doctor of Pharmacy program. Methods A gap analysis was conducted using guidelines from the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI) to explore curricular coverage of the included concepts and competencies. The course was designed to address key competencies not addressed elsewhere in the curriculum. An adapted self‐assessment survey tool was administered at the end of the course for students to retrospectively assess changes in perceived skills and attitudes. Mean retrospective pre‐ and post‐scores were compared using the paired sample t ‐tests and Cohen d as a measure of effect size. Responses to an open‐ended question regarding how students could impact patient safety were qualitatively analyzed for emergent themes. Student performance on the course final exam was analyzed using descriptive statistics to assess knowledge. Results Sixty‐three students (80.8%) completed the survey and were included in the analysis. A statistically significant change was observed in 18 of the 24 self‐assessment items, with effect sizes in the modest to moderate range. Key themes emerged regarding student professional identity development including error prevention, error management, reporting culture, learning culture, just culture, and teamwork. The mean individual student score on the final examination was 87.67% ± 4.87%. Conclusion Findings suggest the new course using the CPSI framework had a positive impact on student knowledge, perceived skills, and attitudes in the area of patient safety.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".