Enhancing a High-reliability Safety Culture through a Reimagined Leadership Workshop Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Two distinct safety and quality improvement programs are in place for leaders at the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids). The Daily Continuous Improvement Program, inspired by Thedacare’s lean management system, was implemented in 2012. Additionally, in 2014, SickKids launched a safety-focused initiative called Caring Safely by joining the Solutions for Patient Safety Network. To bolster the high reliability safety culture at SickKids since the launch of these two programs, a needs assessment, guided by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Framework for Safe, Reliable, and Effective Care, identified an opportunity to integrate content from both programs to revitalize training materials and align theoretical approaches and tools for leadership teams (Fig. 1). The goal was to deliver an educational workshop series to cohesive leadership teams within a 6-month period to enhance uptake of the content and encourage a collaborative approach to applying tools into practice. The desired outcome was to streamline the core concepts from the legacy programs, addressing knowledge gaps and supporting leaders in effectively implementing these principles to enhance the safety culture at SickKids.Fig. 1.: Workshop objectives and outcomes.Methods: Participants were divided into three cohorts to attend the five-module workshop. Pre-session self-assessment surveys confirmed the ongoing relevance of identified learning needs. Postsession workshop evaluations informed continuous improvement, guiding facilitators in refining modules between cohorts using a Plan, Do, Study, Act approach (Fig. 2).Fig. 2.: The PDSA approach to workshop planning and refining content for each cohort.Results: Over 100 leaders (Quality Leaders, Interprofessional Education Specialists, Managers, Directors) across 12 different clinical areas attended the workshop series. Postsession survey results indicated participants valued the workshops in introducing and/or refreshing their understanding of their roles in enhancing the safety culture at SickKids. Employing a Plan, Do, Study, Act approach proved beneficial in ensuring the workshops’ effectiveness, with an increase likelihood between cohorts of participants recommending the program to a colleague. Conclusions: A preliminary program evaluation suggests that to sustain consistent application of content, leaders will require ongoing support. A community of practice and dedicated time for refreshed training will be explored. Further evaluation of the program is underway, and with goals to expand the training beyond clinical operations, tailoring content will be required to reach a broader audience of clinical adjacent leaders.
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
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".