Determinants of patient-reported medication errors: a comparison among seven countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medication errors are a frequent cause of adverse drug events and a major concern for patient safety. This study compared the predictors of error among seven countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and the Netherlands). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using the 2007 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey data. The outcome was patient-reported error in the past 2 years. Possible predictors were studied using logistic regression. RESULTS: Eleven thousand nine hundred and ten respondents were included in this analysis, of which 1291 respondents (11%) had experienced error. Poor coordination of care was a shared concern of all seven countries [adjusted odds ratios (ORs) ranged from 2.1 (95% CI: 1.3-3.5) to 3.0 (95% CI: 2.1-4.5)]. Cost-related barriers to medical services/medicines was also a predictor in six countries [ORs ranged from 1.9 (95% CI: 1.5-2.6) to 2.6 (95% CI: 1.5-4.6)]. Other common risk factors across countries included seeing multiple specialists, multiple chronic conditions, hospitalisation and multiple emergency room visits. Cross-country heterogeneity in contributing factors included age and specific chronic condition. Number of medications, number of doctor visits, household income and education level were not associated with error in most countries. CONCLUSION: Poor coordination of care is a key risk factor in all seven countries. Cost-related barriers were also associated with an increased likelihood of error. The major challenge for all countries for error prevention is better communication among multiple healthcare providers and more structured organisation of care across healthcare settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it