MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4413834877 · doi:10.1097/pq9.0000000000000827

Designing Safer Transitions: Proactively Reducing Ambulatory Staff Harm from Patient Behavioral Events

2025· article· en· W4413834877 sur OpenAlexaff
Laura R. Nicholson, Laurel P. Scarfo

Notice bibliographique

RevuePediatric Quality and Safety · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHealthcare Policy and Management
Établissements canadiensHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSAFERHarmAmbulatoryPsychologyApplied psychologyMedical emergencyMedicineComputer scienceComputer securitySocial psychologySurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital supports clients with complex behavioral and developmental needs, where transitions to and from ambulatory care can pose safety risks for staff. To proactively address these challenges, the Walk-Through Talk-Through (WT3) tool, encouraged by Solutions for Patient Safety, was implemented. This structured tool was used to identify and address behavioral safety risks to support safer transitions in care. Grounded in a “work-as-done” perspective, WT3 explored how transitions occur in practice, rather than solely as intended. By capturing frontline workflows, improvisations, and system pressures, WT3 revealed human factors and latent safety threats. These insights informed codesigned protocols and the planning of a new clinical space in the Extensive Needs Services (ENS) program. Methods: WT3 involved frontline staff, clients, and caregivers in observing and mapping transition touchpoints, including arrivals, movement between spaces, and postvisit exits. WT3 supports staff in identifying proactive safety measures. Perspectives from clients and caregivers were also gathered to assess necessary precautions. Potential risks, such as miscommunication, client escalation, and environmental hazards, were identified. Solutions and mitigation strategies were codesigned with ENS staff, security, and program leaders. Mitigation strategies were codesigned with ENS clinicians, security staff, and leadership and incorporated into both care protocols and physical space design. The goal is to ensure the safety and well-being of Holland Bloorview staff while also fostering an inclusive environment that supports the integration of clients with high behavioral needs. We are committed to minimizing staff harm through appropriate strategies, training, and support, in addition to environmental design. This ensures that we promote respectful, person-centered care that upholds the dignity and potential of every individual with a focus on the principle of least restraint. With the new clinical space for ENS now built, there will be ongoing assessment of the impact of WT3 using key metrics, such as staff harm data, family satisfaction, safety event reporting, and patient behavioral events data. Results: Risks identified included missed or unclear registration, escalations in unsecured areas, overstimulating environments, and infrastructure issues. Mitigation strategies implemented include: designated client entry points and improved elevator access; secured clinic doors with badge access to prevent elopement; environmental modifications to reduce sensory triggers; access to preferred items to support regulation. Fig. 1.: Patient behavior events vs employee harm events related to patient behavior events. A spike in employee harm occurred in March 2024 despite prior crisis training. After WT3 implementation in September 2024, employee harm events declined and remained low, even as behavioral events continued. This suggests that WT3 effectively reduced staff harm during transitions. NCI, nonviolent crisis intervention.Conclusions: WT3 enabled the early identification of behavioral safety risks and supported practical, codesigned solutions. Integrating these strategies into workflows and infrastructure improved safety for clients, families, and staff (see Fig. 1 ). This model demonstrates the value of proactive design thinking and cross-disciplinary collaboration in creating safer pediatric ambulatory environments. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the Holland Bloorview ENS team and the Solutions for Patient Safety Network for their support and collaboration in this work.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,656
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
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)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,093
Tête enseignante GPT0,327
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePediatric Quality and SafetyMême sujetHealthcare Policy and ManagementTravaux en français237 207