The Timely Open Communication for Patient Safety Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Concern is growing over increased numbers of adverse events experienced by patients when admitted to acute care hospitals in Canada due to breakdowns in communication. The purpose of the Timely Open Communication for Patient Safety (TOC) project was to create a culture of patient safety through enhanced interprofessional communication by developing resources for caregivers and patients. Methods and Findings: The research was framed by a mixed methods design that included pre- and post-surveys and focus groups, online educational modules, face-to-face activities, and the development of patient orientation materials. Three clinical sites participated in the study. The findings indicate that supporting healthcare teams to identify strengths, challenges, and future directions of communicating, clarifying roles, functioning, and collaborating, coupled with educational interventions that raise awareness of patient safety,may enhance patient safety. The study was limited by the absence of data regarding the incidence of adverse events during the research period. Conclusion: The data showed improvement in team members' perceptions of interprofessional collaborative practice within the participating Collaborative Learning Units (CLUs). If the CLU model of care is adopted within the healthcare system, the safety of patients/clients may improve.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".