MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406630375 · doi:10.1192/bja.2024.77

Applying quality improvement to clinical practice: primer for psychiatrists

2025· article· en· W4406630375 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya Nidumolu, Andrea Waddell, Tara A. Burra

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimer (cosmetics)Clinical PracticeQuality (philosophy)PsychologyMedicineFamily medicineChemistryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Quality improvement (QI) is an evidence-based approach to analysing and improving healthcare systems. QI's success has led it to become a required competency expected of medical professionals in several countries. However, much of the QI literature to date has not focused on mental health. Moreover, many psychiatrists have no formal training in QI. To address this gap, this article introduces key QI concepts, including six dimensions of quality care, the Model for Improvement and plan–do–study–act cycles. Each QI concept is illustrated using a fictitious case study of an out-patient psychiatrist reducing chronic benzodiazepine use in their clinic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0090.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.637
Teacher spread0.520 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych AdvancesSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207