MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2415015711

Conference Report : Putting patient safety on the health care agenda

2001· article· en· W2415015711 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rob Robson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWifePatient safetyHarmHealth literacyHealth careMedicineNewspaperPsychologyNursingLawSocial psychologyPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Today marked your first visit to the renal failure clinic. You saw a doctor, at least 1 nurse, then someone who talked about food. A kind team coordinator wrote out your instructions, which looked like this: Mr. Jones: #$&^#R53$R @345s $%*bl) and @!!@##%#$%. Begin with @###($^%$., hjj%%&dv, 334%&^!#$^ and +&**#g#4d. It had been a very long day. You took the instructions, knowing that your wife would help sort them out. She usually has to help, since you are among the 20% of adults considered fully illiterate. Unfortunately, your wife is in the subgroup (28%) of functionally illiterate adults that comes next. This means she cannot even read the front page of a newspaper. So what do you do now? Literacy issues like this were but one topic during the Annenberg III conference in Minneapolis in mid-May, where the almost 700 attendees were seeking ways to improve patient safety and reduce risks and harm in medical care. We learned that effective communication with patients is a key factor in achieving this, but the task becomes daunting if a medical error occurs and a patient is harmed. The question then becomes: Should we share this information with patients? The National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF), a US not-for-profit organization founded in part by the American Medical Association, believes we should. Its Statement of Principle reads: “When a health care injury occurs the patient and the family . . . are entitled to a prompt explanation of how the injury occurred and its short and long-term effects. When an error contributed to the injury, [they] should receive a truthful and compassionate explanation about the error and the remedies available to the patient. They should be informed that the factors involved in the injury will be investigated so that steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood of similar injury to other patients.” The conference participants, who included physicians, nurses and risk managers, heard several moving presentations by patients who had been injured while receiving medical care and saw videotaped examples of how to discuss errors, as well as a simulated mediation case. Presenters pointed out that a team-based collaborative approach is needed to introduce the changes required to prevent errors, but existing systems usually rely on a punitive “blame-and-shame” approach that does not lead to effective learning or change. There was little argument about the ethical duty of health care workers to disclose errors, although there are many practical barriers to this. A Kentucky hospital that instituted a “patient bill of rights” 8 years ago found that its policy of prompt and full disclosure of errors has actually decreased the liability costs arising from them. However, a major cultural change will be required before changes like that become widespread. The good news for physicians is that discussion of this topic has finally begun. The bad news for Canada is that only 11 of the almost 700 participants at the Minneapolis meeting were Canadian. For further information on this subject, visit www.mederrors.org, www.annenberg.net or www.npsf.org.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,706
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0270,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,401
Écart entre enseignants0,344 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2001
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Medical Association JournalMême sujetMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesTravaux en français237 207