MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2520911970 · doi:10.1002/wmh3.199

Medical Errors: Next Steps

2016· article· en· W2520911970 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arnauld Nicogossian, Bonnie Stabile, Otmar Kloiber, Thomas Zimmerman

Notice bibliographique

RevueWorld Medical & Health Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient Safety and Medication Errors
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth careMedicinePsychological interventionPopulationEpidemiologyFamily medicineAdverse effectGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthPolitical sciencePsychiatrySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Two decades of advances in genomics, information technology, and precision medicine hold the promise for better care and improved survival for patients with chronic disorders. Patients expect that the health-care system, especially in countries with a market economy, will continue to offer solutions and cures to many illnesses. Yet, concerns over morbidity and mortality from unsafe health-care practices continue to linger and erode patient confidence. The Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academies sounded the alarm on patient safety in a report published 17 years ago and called for an examination of health care practices (Institute of Medicine, 2000). Since then several epidemiological studies have been conducted to determine the extent and causes of, and interventions for, adverse medical events and patient safety (Jha et al., 2013; Kemp, Santana, Southern, McCormack, & Quan, 2016; O'Hagan, MacKinnon, Persaud, & Etchegary, 2009). A survey from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States estimated 12 to 20 percent adverse events, with disability more common than mortality, and a higher disability-adjusted life year (DALY) in developing countries (O'Hagan et al., 2009). The authors estimate that seven types of adverse events considered in this study constitute the 20th leading cause of morbidity and mortality for the world's population. In the United States, medical errors and adverse effects (Grober & Bohenen, 2005; Makary & Daniel, 2016) continue to be at the center of controversy and are the subject of continued news media headlines. One in seven U.S. Medicare1 patients experiences a medical error (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014). Prescription drugs are reported for nearly 100,000 hospitalizations each year. Many in-patient health institutions (hospitals) are increasingly employing physician hospitalists to care for the admissions. Transitions in care, from one physician to another, or to a hospitalist, can lead to preventable harm related to medications (Graham, Scudder, & Stokowski, 2015; Velo & Minuz, 2009). Many countries and international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the World Medical Association (53rd World Medical Association General Assembly, 2002) have published guidelines to improve patient safety. Most countries with a market economy have established registries for reporting medication adverse events. New tools such as health forecasting (Soyiri & Reidpath, 2013) can assist with better epidemiological data collection and research. Medical errors should be recognized as a standalone diagnostic code in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) to facilitate the collection of global information on morbidity and mortality and DALY estimates. The global health-care enterprise is diverse, and one of the 20 largest industries financed by governments and private entities. It is estimated that by 2022, health expenditures for the developing (about 33 percent of the share) and market economy countries (about 67 percent) will exceed 12 trillion USD. The world population is growing and aging. The number of health-care professionals is not in step with future population needs. Health-care facilities are expected to help improve health outcomes. Preventable errors are costly, especially in human suffering, and should be addressed expediently. Many health-care providers have already adopted patient safety safeguards and standards. Many safety practices are simple and should be adopted as soon as possible. Increasing the number of providers, reducing working hours and fatigue, improving communications, providing systems for blame-free reporting, and engaging patients in understanding the health safety culture should be priorities.

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
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 enseignants0,576
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,994

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0290,007

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 Opus0,108
Tête enseignante GPT0,514
Écart entre enseignants0,406 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

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

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueWorld Medical & Health PolicyMême sujetPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsTravaux en français237 207