Barriers to Implementing a Reporting and Learning Patient Safety System
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
A reporting and learning system is a method of monitoring the occurrence of incidents that affect patient safety. This cross-sectional survey asked pediatric chiropractors about factors that may limit their participation in such a system. The list of potential barriers for participation was developed using a systematic approach. All members of the 2 pediatric councils associated with US national chiropractic organizations were invited to complete the survey (N = 400). The cross-sectional survey was created using an online survey tool (REDCap) and sent directly to member emails addressed by the respective executive committees. Of the 400 potential respondents, 81 responded (20.3%). The most common limitations to participating were identified as time pressure (96%) and patient concerns (81%). Reporting and learning systems have been utilized to increase safety awareness in many high-risk industries. To be successful, future patient safety studies with pediatric chiropractors need to ensure these barriers are understood and addressed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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