Patient safety and professional discourses: implications for interprofessionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient safety has been presented as a unifying concern across the health professions. This conceptual connection has been accompanied with efforts towards standardized, interprofessional safety competencies, as well as increased attention towards interprofessional education for systems improvement. Despite numerous program initiatives and research endeavors, progress towards improving patient safety in hospitals is viewed as disappointingly slow. This paper adds to a body of literature that suggests patient safety remains a difficult problem to solve because safety is not simply a technical issue, but is a practice embedded in organizational and professional contexts. In this paper, we explore the differences between the professions, as different professional groups intersect with the ways patient safety is thought about, talked about, and known about in an acute care hospital in Canada. We draw on findings from a critical discourse analysis of documents related to patient safety, as well as transcripts from interviews from (a) formal health care leaders and (b) practicing clinicians from medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and social work. This analysis suggests implications for the way different professions may or may not work with one another in the service of patient safety.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".