Towards safer interprofessional communication: Constructing a model of “utility” from preoperative team briefings
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
"Improved team communication" is broadly advocated in the discourse on safety but rarely supported by a precise understanding of the relationship between specific communication practices and concrete improvements in collaborative work processes. We sought to improve such understanding by analyzing the discourse arising from structured preoperative team briefings among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists prior to general surgery procedures. Analysis of observers' fieldnotes from 302 briefings yielded a two-part model of communicative "utility", defined as the visible impact of communication on team awareness and behavior. "Informational utility" occurred when team awareness or knowledge was improved by provision of new information, explicit confirmation, reminders, or education. "Functional utility" represented direct communication - work connections: many briefings identified problems, prompting decision-making and follow-up actions. The crux of the model is an elaboration of the causal pathway between a specific communication practice (the team briefing), intermediary processes such as enhanced knowledge and purposeful action, and the quality and safety of collaborative care processes. Modeling this pathway is a critical step in promoting change, as it renders visible both the latent dangers present in current team communication systems and the specific ways in which altered communication patterns can impact team awareness and behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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