Patient safety and quality in healthcare
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
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.077 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| 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