Identification by families of pediatric adverse events and near misses overlooked by health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying adverse events and near misses is essential to improving safety in the health care system. Patients are capable of reliably identifying and reporting adverse events. The effect of a patient safety reporting system used by families of pediatric inpatients on reporting of adverse events by health care providers has not previously been investigated. METHODS: Between Nov. 1, 2008, and Nov. 30, 2009, families of children discharged from a single ward of British Columbia's Children's Hospital were asked to respond to a questionnaire about adverse events and near misses during the hospital stay. Rates of reporting by health care providers for this period were compared with rates for the previous year. Family reports for specific incidents were matched with reports by health care providers to determine overlap. RESULTS: A total of 544 familes responded to the questionnaire. The estimated absolute increase in reports by health care providers per 100 admissions was 0.5% (95% confidence interval -1.8% to 2.7%). A total of 321 events were identified in 201 of the 544 family reports. Of these, 153 (48%) were determined to represent legitimate patient safety concerns. Only 8 (2.5%) of the adverse events reported by families were also reported by health care providers. INTERPRETATION: The introduction of a family-based system for reporting adverse events involving pediatric inpatients, administered at the time of discharge, did not change rates of reporting of adverse events and near misses by health care providers. Most reports submitted by families were not duplicated in the reporting system for health care providers, which suggests that families and staff members view safety-related events differently. However, almost half of the family reports represented legitimate patient safety concerns. Families appeared capable of providing valuable information for improving the safety of pediatric inpatients.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".