Hindsight is 20/20: Lessons learned after implementing experience based design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experience Based Design (EBD) uses patient and staff experiences to identify quality improvement opportunities in healthcare settings. An EBD Collaborative was established to share successes and challenges related to the EBD projects. This paper summarizes the various lessons learned. A document analysis was conducted that examined meeting minutes and audio recordings, email communications, newsletters, project updates, project spotlights and evaluation surveys and interviews. A total of ten key themes were identified. While EBD teams encountered challenges, overall the experience led to successful quality improvement initiatives. In particular, staff gained new insights from the patients’ perspective, which enhanced their understanding of patient experience. Engaging patients in the work to co-design and improve the patient experience requires work, commitment, time and leadership. There are several strategies that the EBD teams found effective as outlined in this paper; however, the most important element of success is the ability to listen and act on what is heard.
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 | 0.035 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".