MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072077413 · doi:10.1177/0969733013509042

Patient safety and quality in healthcare

2014· editorial· en· W2072077413 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

VenueNursing Ethics · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyHealth careMedicineSAFERNursingBusinessMedical emergencyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, health systems face constraints and challenges around patient safety and quality, lack of human resources, and rising moral distress among nurses. This concern about the gap in quality and patient safety and the need for improvement was highlighted more than a decade ago in two landmark studies by the Institute of Medicine (IOM): To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System and Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. These reports were followed by a staggering number of scholarly publications, improvement initiatives, and the establishment of various institutions on patient safety. In 2004, the World Alliance for Patient Safety was launched to advance the goal of patient safety, to coordinate patient safety initiatives globally, and to reduce the impact of unsafe healthcare through a number of systemic programs (e.g. mobilizing patients and organizations for patient safety, addressing taxonomy, research, development, and reporting of learning systems). Additionally, an ad hoc expert group of the Alliance produced a report summarizing the evidence on patient safety, which highlighted structural, process, and outcome gaps in need of further research (e.g. safety culture, organizational determinants, structural accountability, lack of patient involvement in patient safety, adverse events, injuries related to drug treatment, and medical devices). Furthermore, the report highlighted the burden in terms of morbidity and mortality posed by unsafe healthcare globally, lack of available data from developing countries around structural and process factors contributing to unsafe care, and the applicability of data derived predominantly from developed countries to local conditions in developing countries. Recommendations were made for a better understanding of the epidemiology of adverse events and processes contributing to them in developing countries. In nursing, the response from the profession to the call for patient safety and quality has been remarkable. In an evidence-based handbook for nurses, Hughes highlighted nursing’s contributions to patient safety and quality, evidence-based practice, patient-centered care, improvement in working conditions, and the work environment for nurses, and discussed a number of opportunities for further improvement and research. Furthermore, nurses’ continuing contributions span a broad range of initiatives in practice (e.g. patient advocacy and attentiveness training and nurse-led quality improvement), education (e.g. curriculum changes to target core competencies such as evidence-based practice, informatics, and quality improvement), and research using a number of conceptual and empirical methodologies to explicate, analyze, and synthesize data and to implement and evaluate interventions (e.g. nurse-led clinics, tele-health, and care pathways). In addition, nurse leaders and nursing governing bodies responded with a number of position papers, revision of policies and Code of Ethics, and accreditation and regulatory initiatives, to demonstrate the profession’s commitment to patient safety and quality. Although there has been some progress, more still needs to be done.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0060.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.350 · 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