The Clinician in Quality and Innovation: A Qualitative Study of a Novel Academic Pathway at 10 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite widespread attention to addressing healthcare quality problems, few academic medical centers provide an academic pathway for faculty engaged in such work. This qualitative case study examined physicians and department leaders' perceptions and experiences of a novel "Clinician in Quality and Innovation" (CQI) academic pathway created in 2012. Interviews were conducted with 23 CQI faculty and 7 department leaders. Of the department's 20 divisions, 15 included at least one CQI with a median of 5 per division. Findings demonstrated how the academic track aligned with, and legitimized, CQIs' interests, and allowed for a wide range of "quality and innovation" activities (eg, improving healthcare processes, developing models of care, clinical informatics). Contextual factors such as synergies with hospital-based initiatives for healthcare improvement and changes to academic promotion criteria were instrumental in CQI's performance of the academic role. Despite promotion successes, CQIs described some tensions between academic and clinical role expectations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".