Qualitative Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Collaborative Implementation to Improve Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Atlantic Canada Together Enhancing Acute Stroke Treatment (ACTEAST) project is a Modified Quality Improvement Collaborative (mQIC) designed to improve ischemic stroke treatment rates and time-based efficiency in Atlantic Canada. This study specifically evaluates the implementation of the mQIC in Nova Scotia using qualitative methods. The mQIC spanned six months and included two Learning Sessions, multiple webinars, and a per-site virtual visit. Each session was followed by an action planning period to guide implementation efforts over the following 2-4 months. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was utilized to develop a pre-tested, semi-structured interview guide, which aimed to uncover barriers and facilitators to mQIC implementation. Interviews were conducted with 14 healthcare professionals, generating 454 references that were coded into 28 CFIR constructs. Notably, 84% of these references were positively framed as facilitators. Despite this, significant barriers were identified, including resource availability, competing priorities, communication challenges, and difficulties engaging key stakeholders. Some barriers were particularly prominent during specific phases of implementation. The study findings offer valuable insights into the implementation of quality improvement initiatives in stroke care. They underscore the importance of recognizing and addressing context-specific barriers, while also leveraging identified facilitators to drive successful implementation and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.032 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".