MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129114807 · doi:10.12927/hcpap..16957

Making Patients Safer! Reducing Error in Canadian Healthcare

2001· review· en· W2129114807 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G. Ross Baker, Peter Norton

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careSAFERPublic healthEquity (law)Population healthHealth equityPublic policyHealth policyMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Media reports of adverse events experienced by patients raise questions about whether these are isolated exceptions or part of a larger problem. There is no reliable Canadian data on medical error; but there is little reason to expect that the situation differs markedly from Australia or the United States which have rigorously studied the problem. Research in Australia has concluded that as many as 16% of hospital patients are injured as a result of their treatment. The Australian study and more recent research in the United States have created widespread concern that an epidemic of error exists in healthcare. Fortunately, experts in healthcare and other industries, have pointed toward a number of solutions that will reduce these errors. Three key strategies need to be pursued First, better information about the numbers and types of errors that occur is needed to help pinpoint change efforts. Non-punitive reporting policies must be put in place, to assist in altering the traditional culture of blame that has discouraged error reporting. Second, a set of strategies have to focus on developing more effective systems, including physician-order entry and medication administration systems which have been shown to have a dramatic impact in reducing errors. These systems are expensive, but their importance in reducing injury - and greatly reducing the costs of additional care that come from such injuries - make them an essential part of the answer. Finally, healthcare organizations need to work to create more effective cultures oriented toward preventing errors and intercepting errors that inevitably occur. These cultures will require a new emphasis on teamwork, a continual focus on redesigning care systems, particularly in high risk areas such as operating rooms, intensive care units and emergency rooms. These are not easy tasks and will require investments in new equipment and new skills. These steps are essential if we are to maintain public confidence in healthcare.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0220.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations51
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be HealthySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207