P05.25. Exploring the safety culture in spinal manipulative therapy: interviews with key informants and frontline practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative case study involved: (1) key informants from regulating bodies, professional associations and training facilities of the four professional groups that include SMT in their scope of practice in Canada (chiropractors, physicians, physiotherapists and osteopaths; n=12-15); and (2) practitioners from each discipline who undertake SMT in their practices (n=30-40) and practice in Alberta, Canada. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with each participant. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to content analysis. Interviews are expected to be completed by December 2011. While patient safety was a widely expressed priority, conventional safety culture concepts (such as “no blame, no shame”) were largely unfamiliar to participants. There were also fears about how “safety” information might be used against practitioners who offer SMT. Structural factors such as combined professional associations and regulatory colleges and the influence of professional protective associations on the safety culture emerged, but there was limited understanding of how they may influence patient safety. Ongoing interviews will probe these themes further and explore differences between professional groups as well as between key informants and frontline practitioners. The findings will be used to inform the development of a spinal manipulation safety culture intervention that will be implemented in the second phase of this project.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".