Development and Implementation of a Safety Incident Report System for Health Care Discipline Students During Clinical Internships: Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a fundamental aspect of health care practice across global health systems. Safe practices, which include incident reporting systems, have proven valuable in preventing the recurrence of safety incidents. However, the accessibility of this tool for health care discipline students is not consistent, limiting their acquisition of competencies. In addition, there is no tools to familiarize students with analyzing safety incidents. Gamification has emerged as an effective strategy in health care education. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop an incident reporting system tailored to the specific needs of health care discipline students, named Safety Incident Report System for Students. Secondary objectives included studying the performance of different groups of students in the use of the platform and training them on the correct procedures for reporting. METHODS: This was an observational study carried out in 3 phases. Phase 1 consisted of the development of the web-based platform and the incident registration form. For this purpose, systems already developed and in use in Spain were taken as a basis. During phase 2, a total of 223 students in medicine and nursing with clinical internships from universities in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Spain received an introductory seminar and were given access to the platform. Phase 3 ran in parallel and involved evaluation and feedback of the reports received as well as the opportunity to submit the students' opinion on the process. Descriptive statistics were obtained to gain information about the incidents, and mean comparisons by groups were performed to analyze the scores obtained. RESULTS: The final form was divided into 9 sections and consisted of 48 questions that allowed for introducing data about the incident, its causes, and proposals for an improvement plan. The platform included a personal dashboard displaying submitted reports, average scores, progression, and score rankings. A total of 105 students participated, submitting 147 reports. Incidents were mainly reported in the hospital setting, with complications of care (87/346, 25.1%) and effects of medication or medical products (82/346, 23.7%) being predominant. The most repeated causes were related confusion, oversight, or distractions (49/147, 33.3%) and absence of process verification (44/147, 29.9%). Statistically significant differences were observed between the mean final scores received by country (P<.001) and sex (P=.006) but not by studies (P=.47). Overall, participants rated the experience of using the Safety Incident Report System for Students positively. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents an initial adaptation of reporting systems to suit the needs of students, introducing a guided and inspiring framework that has garnered positive acceptance among students. Through this endeavor, a pathway toward a safety culture within the faculty is established. A long-term follow-up would be desirable to check the real benefits of using the tool during education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05350345; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05350345.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».