Engaging nurses to strengthen medication safety: Fostering and capturing change with restorative photographic research methods
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
We used participatory photographic research methods adapted from the field of ecological restoration to engage Brazilian intensive care unit nurses in a critical review of medication safety in their work environment. Using focus groups, practitioner-led photo walkabouts with photo narration, and photo elicitation focus groups in iterative phases of data collection and analysis, nurses developed and implemented several practical and cultural improvements for their unit. Participants focussed on organizing the medication room for efficient workflow and accessible supplies, improving reporting practices, and reconsidering how they could manage safety issues in their unit and in the hospital as a whole. Our results demonstrated that restorative photographic research methods enabled participants to (re)think and redesign their work environment in keeping with several recommended practices for improving medication management. It also validated the need for continuous evidence-informed improvements if nurses hope to optimize medication safety in the complex systems of intensive care.
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 | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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