MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129953446 · doi:10.1111/jocn.12809

Failures in communication through documents and documentation across the perioperative pathway

2015· article· en· W2129953446 on OpenAlex
Sandra Braaf, Robin Riley, Elizabeth Manias

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilEastern Health
KeywordsDocumentationThematic analysisPatient safetyPerioperativeMedicineNursingQuality (philosophy)Qualitative researchFocus groupHealth careMedical emergencyBusinessAnesthesiaPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore how communication failures occur in documents and documentations across the perioperative pathway in nurses' interactions with other nurses, surgeons and anaesthetists. BACKGROUND: Documents and documentation are used to communicate vital patient and procedural information among nurses, and in nurses' interactions with surgeons and anaesthetists, across the perioperative pathway. Previous research indicates that communication failure regularly occurs in the perioperative setting. DESIGN: A qualitative study was undertaken. METHODS: The study was conducted over three hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. One hundred and twenty-five healthcare professionals from the disciplines of surgery, anaesthesia and nursing participated in the study. Data collection commenced in January 2010 and concluded in October 2010. Data were generated through 350 hours of observation, two focus groups and 20 semi-structured interviews. A detailed thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Communication failure occurred owing to a reliance on documents and documentation to transfer information at patient transition points, poor quality documents and documentation, and problematic access to information. Institutional ruling practices of professional practice, efficiency and productivity, and fiscal constraint dominated the coordination of nurses', surgeons' and anaesthetists' communication through documents and documentation. These governing practices configured communication to be incongruous with reliably meeting safety and quality objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Communication failure occurred because important information was sometimes buried in documents, insufficient, inaccurate, out-of-date or not verbally reinforced. Furthermore, busy nurses were not always able to access information they required in a timely manner. Patient safety was affected, which led to delays in treatment and at times inadequate care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Organisational support needs to be provided to nurses, surgeons and anaesthetists so they have sufficient time to complete, locate, and read documents and documentation. Infrastructure supporting communication technologies should be implemented to enable the rapid retrieval, entry, and dispersion of information.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.418 · 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