MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967545571 · doi:10.1258/ce.2010.010026

Being open with patients about medical error: challenges in practice

2010· article· en· W1967545571 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Melanie Ottewill, Camille P. Vaughan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Ethics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of BrightonUniversity of SussexYork University
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Process (computing)Patient safetyRhetoricPsychologyPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceHealth careSociologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a significant body of evidence showing that patients want to know when they are harmed as a result of their medical care. In 2005 the National Patient Safety Agency issued guidance on the process to be followed when communicating errors to patients and their carers. However, there is still a significant gap between the rhetoric of being open and clinical practice. This gap reflects the competing interests arising from the concept of being open and the difficulties involved in the process itself. This paper presents several case studies to explore the complexities of being open and the organizational support required to overcome these.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.463
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EthicsSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207