MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Team communication in the operating room

2005· article· en· W1989903650 on OpenAlexaff
Jan M. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituation awarenessTeamworkMedicineSAFERPatient safetyWorkloadIdentification (biology)Health careAviationFunction (biology)NursingProcess managementMedical emergencyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good communication is vital for safe patient care and good team functioning, not only in the Operating Room but also in all areas of healthcare, as well as in other safety critical industries. Examples from aviation demonstrate both the failures and the successes that can arise from poor and excellent communication. There are six components of effective teamwork: situational awareness, problem identification, decision making, workload distribution, time management and conflict resolution. Practising these, and self-evaluation of team communication, should help to improve team function and contribute to making patient care safer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations78
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207