Patient Safety in a Pediatric Centre: Partnering with Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient Centred Care (PCC) is a recognized pillar of quality healthcare. According to the Institute of Medicine (Kohn et al. 2000), PCC respects and is responsive to individual patient preferences, needs and values, and ensures they guide all clinical decisions. In a pediatric setting, both the child and family's preferences and values are critical; as a result, the concept of PCC is broadened to include the entire family, and is termed Family Centred Care (FCC). True FCC requires transparent and ongoing collaboration between the child, family, and all members of the healthcare team. An institution's commitment to Family Centred Care must be explicit and permeate all aspects of healthcare provisions. At Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), the Families as Partners in Patient Safety Committee has proven to be a successful initiative based on Family Centred Care principles. This interdisciplinary committee includes healthcare providers, parents and representatives from our hospital's Children's Council. The mandate of the group is to: (1) identify patient safety (PS) issues, (2) make recommendations to improve PS and (3) increase awareness and promote the partnership between parents and staff in PS. Key initiatives to date include developing PS information for families, a combined hand hygiene campaign and a campaign to make the hospital 100% smoke-free. A task-oriented partnership between families and healthcare workers has proven to be a productive model for advancing pediatric 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".