MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Practice Gaps in Patient Safety Among Dermatology Residents and Their Teachers

2014· article· en· W2082166810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jillian H. Swary, Erik J. Stratman

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Dermatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatient safetyCurriculumFamily medicineExpert witnessMedical historyDermatologySurgeryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Curriculum and role modeling adjustments are necessary to address patient safety gaps occurring during dermatology residency. OBJECTIVE: To identify the source of clinical practices among dermatology residents that affect patient safety and determine the best approach for overcoming gaps in knowledge and practice patterns that contribute to these practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A survey-based study, performed at a national medical dermatology meeting in Itasca, Illinois, in 2012, included 142 dermatology residents from 44 residency programs in the United States and Canada. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported rates of dermatology residents committing errors, identifying local systems errors, and identifying poor patient safety role modeling. RESULTS: Of surveyed dermatology residents, 45.2% have failed to report needle-stick injuries incurred during procedures, 82.8% reported cutting and pasting a previous author's patient history information into a medical record without confirming its validity, 96.7% reported right-left body part mislabeling during examination or biopsy, and 29.4% reported not incorporating clinical photographs of lesions sampled for biopsy in the medical record at their institution. Residents variably perform a purposeful pause ("time-out") when indicated to confirm patient, procedure, and site before biopsy, with 20.0% always doing so. In addition, 59.7% of residents work with at least 1 attending physician who intimidates the residents, reducing the likelihood of reporting safety issues they witness. Finally, 78.3% have witnessed attending physicians purposefully disregarding required safety steps. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our data reinforce the need for modified curricula, systems, and teacher development to reduce injuries, improve communication with patients and between physicians, residents, and other members of the health care team, and create an environment free of intimidation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA DermatologySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207