MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011804757 · doi:10.1016/s0001-2092(07)60125-2

Factors Influencing Perioperative Nurses' Error Reporting Preferences

2007· article· en· W2011804757 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAORN Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerioperative nursingPerioperativeOperating room nursingPsychologyMEDLINEMedicineNursingAnesthesiaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore the influence of scope of practice and patient outcomes on error reporting, 13 nurses were interviewed after they reviewed four "error" scenarios ranging in both scope of practice and seriousness of outcome. Of 52 theoretical incidents, only 30 were identified as errors. The nurses indicated they would formally report errors for only eight of the incidents. For another 10 incidents, the nurses would have reported using an informal reporting system only. Qualitative analysis of the interviews revealed that perceived scope of practice influenced reporting preferences, and seriousness of outcome was only a secondary consideration. Selective error reporting and the reasons for selective reporting have negative implications for 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.256 · 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