Exploring Quality and Safety Best Practices at Leading International Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This project aimed to go beyond published literature to glean strategies and lessons learned on quality and safety (Q&S) best practices from centres with pre-eminent international reputations. Methods: Nine centres participated in an interview; questions centred on approaches to building Q&S infrastructure around the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI's) Whole System Quality (WSQ) framework (Sampath et al. 2021). Results: Inductive thematic analyses revealed recommendations for quality planning (e.g., making Q&S the central focus of an organization), quality control (e.g., triangulating Q&S metrics) and quality improvement (e.g., Q&S champions at all levels). Conclusion: Recommendations provide a practical guide for the successful implementation of the IHI WSQ framework.
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 | 0.070 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".