MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417296727 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf116.072

72 Developing and implementing a systems innovation, Quality/Process Improvement, and Patient Safety (SIQIPS) Promotion pathway for faculty of paediatrics

2025· article· en· W4417296727 on OpenAlexafffund
Mona Patel, Tiffany Wong, Sandesh Shivananda

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia
KeywordsEnthusiasmPromotion (chess)Patient safetyGuidelineQuality (philosophy)Quality managementReimbursementExcellence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Healthcare faculty often engage in initiatives beyond clinical care, including quality improvement, systems innovation, and patient safety work. These activities are critical for enhancing healthcare service delivery. However, there is a lack of standardized criteria for recognizing such efforts in academic promotion, which can reduce enthusiasm among clinicians to pursue and sustain these projects. Recognizing this gap, BC Children's Hospital (BCCH), an academic institution with 20 divisions and 252 faculty members (80% in clinical roles), initiated a structured effort to standardize promotion criteria for faculty involved in SIQIPS (Systems Innovation, Quality/Process Improvement, and Patient Safety) work. Objectives The primary objectives were to: (1) develop, achieve consensus, and obtain approval from the University of British Columbia (UBC) Department of Pediatrics (DoP) for a promotion pathway specific to SIQIPS, and (2) assess the feasibility and impact of a workshop designed to promote awareness of the SIQIPS pathway, focusing on faculty perceptions of its usefulness and ease of implementation Design/Methods This project was a community-engaged, prospective improvement initiative conducted from February 2020 to January 2024. For Objective 1, an iterative methodology was employed. The working group performed a comprehensive literature review and engaged stakeholders, including promotion committee members, faculty with a vested interest in SIQIPS, and division chiefs. These engagements occurred through interviews, meetings, and email consultations to validate the existing challenges, explore potential solutions, and refine the draft guidelines. After securing DoP clinical faculty promotions committee approval, the guideline was submitted to the UBC Faculty of Medicine for broader implementation consideration. For Objective 2, a feasibility study was conducted between February and June 2024. A 1.5-hour in-person workshop was developed, incorporating didactic instruction, practical documentation exercises, group discussions, and a feedback session. Participants received guidance on completing SIQIPS documentation in a standardized format and engaged in discussions on the criteria and processes of the SIQIPS promotion pathway. Results The literature review and an environmental scan of promotion criteria at three other universities provided tools to formalize SIQIPS activities within the promotion pathway. Stakeholder engagement highlighted key themes essential for guideline development, including defining SIQIPS work, identifying metrics that demonstrate achievement, and establishing promotion requirements. The SIQIPS section was successfully added to the university's standardized CV template. Presentations of the SIQIPS promotion framework to faculty and promotion committees yielded positive feedback, with 87.5% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that the framework clarified SIQIPS scholarship and motivated continued involvement in this domain. After iterative refinements, the DoP approved the guideline (Fig-1). The inaugural workshop included nine faculty members, all of whom reported an increase in knowledge and understanding of SIQIPS documentation and promotion requirements post-workshop (100% improvement compared to pre-workshop) (Fig-2). Conclusion The development and implementation of a standardized SIQIPS promotion pathway guideline have clarified the criteria for faculty involved in systems innovation, quality improvement, and patient safety work. The feasibility study demonstrated that the workshop effectively raised awareness and supported faculty in understanding and pursuing the SIQIPS promotion track. Future plans include offering the workshop biannually and tracking the proportion of faculty who apply for promotion under the SIQIPS pathway.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicPatient Safety and Medication Errors→French-language works237,207→