MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4239411639 · doi:10.30770/2572-1852-92.3.4

Just Culture

2006· article· en· W4239411639 sur OpenAlex
Trevor Theman

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Medical Regulation · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligious Education and Schools
Établissements canadiensCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBlameHarmValue (mathematics)Health careOrganizational culturePunishment (psychology)PsychologyMedicineMistakeWaiverPublic relationsSocial psychologyLawPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

When patients suffer harm arising from their caregiver it is common that patients or family members will demand that we, the regulators, sanction the caregiver. That desire to assign blame and seek punishment is very strong, especially when it appears that the caregiver has made an error or directly caused the harm.In the spring of 2004 two patients died in Calgary, Alberta, from hyperkalemia as a result of the incorrect mixing of dialysate solution. The Calgary Health Region, the entity responsible for the provision of hospital care, responded promptly, disclosing the facts about these cases to the two families, conducted a critical incident review and sought an independent external review. Among its recommendations, the external reviewers made reference to the “just culture” and wrote: “In a just culture, workers can differentiate what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. A just culture recognizes that in most cases punishing staff for errors does nothing to help ensure that the next employee in a similar situation will not make the same error. At the same time a just culture does not accept negligence, willful violations of rules and standards or substance abuse on the job. Healthcare workers expect management to act when it is warranted and may even feel more vulnerable when unacceptable behavior is not penalized.”Their report included the recommendations to incorporate patient safety as a core value and guiding principle and to create a clear policy on the consequences of reporting of errors (i.e., reporting will not have a negative impact on the individual’s performance appraisal and will not lead to disciplinary action).As regulators we become the interface between the public and the health care system when we are asked to investigate a complaint where a patient has suffered harm. In protecting the public we have a duty to ensure that unsafe, incompetent or impaired physicians are prevented from injuring patients – by limiting their practices, removing them from practice or ensuring they receive treatment or remediation. We also have a responsibility to understand patient safety principles, to acknowledge that harm to a patient is seldom a result of a single act by an unsafe practitioner. More often it is the result of a series of errors (Reason’s “Swiss cheese” model) and reflects underlying vulnerabilities in our systems of care.Accepting that the majority of medical errors resulting in harm are a result of system problems (rather than individual fallibility) is, as Lucian Leape says, a “transforming concept” and obliges us to move from the traditional name and blame approach to a learning organization approach – trying to understand how the event occurred rather than by trying to identify a perpetrator.The concept of a “just culture” offers us a touchstone for our work: Punishing a practitioner for harming a patient is unlikely to uncover the defects in the system that lead to the event and will not prevent recurrence; punishment as an approach is likely only to cover up errors and system vulnerabilities and discourage reporting of close calls and events that do lead to harm; and punishment reinforces the outdated view that the cause of patient harm is imperfect individuals, rather than unsafe systems of care. I think we all accept that very few practitioners go to work with the intention of harming patients.However, there are some acts and behaviors that are willful, egregious and unsafe, and for which visible and measured action must be taken. Impaired and unwell physicians should receive treatment and, once recovered, require monitoring of their health and their practice. Physicians who deliberately break rules – such as boundary violators – should receive appropriate sanctions for their actions.From my perspective as a regulator, the “just culture” concept helps define the intersection of medical regulation and health care safety principles and offers us – and the public we serve – a rationale for our approach to medical error and patient harm. We cannot tolerate deliberately unsafe violations and breaches of ethical principles or standards of practice, and at the same time we must understand the system in which our members work if we are to fairly adjudicate on the conduct of physicians when patients suffer harm. To do otherwise would not only be unfair to physicians and other health care providers, but would impede the work that continues to make our systems of care safer.

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.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,439
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,981

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,376
Écart entre enseignants0,354 · 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