Patients’ perception of error during craniotomy for brain tumour and their attitudes towards pre-operative discussion of error: a qualitative study
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
INTRODUCTION: Medical error can result in significant morbidity and even mortality. Public and media attention remains focussed on its incidence and causes. Appreciation of patient perception of medical error in the neurosurgical setting is limited. This study investigated patients' perceptions of potential medical error during craniotomy for brain tumour and whether this influenced their decision to consent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study utilised qualitative research methodology. Thirty-five patients who had undergone craniotomy for brain tumour were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis revealed seven overarching themes: (i) views on what constituted medical error were well formed; (ii) to err is human; (iii) protocols exist to prevent error; (iv) trust in one's surgeon is important; (v) patients' belief that they can influence the likelihood of error was variable; (vi) concern with treating the disease trumps worry over possible errors; and (vii) the usefulness of discussing potential error was variable. CONCLUSIONS: Patients had a good understanding of medical error and it's potential causes. The usefulness of pre-operative, pre-consent discussion of error was varied. It may empower clinicians and patients to talk about such issues, though this should avoid exacerbating a patient's anxiety.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it