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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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