MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141769612 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzh026

Handoff strategies in settings with high consequences for failure: lessons for health care operations

2004· article· en· W2141769612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily S. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Services Research and DevelopmentCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorAstellas Pharma US
KeywordsHandoverObservational studyOperations managementMedical emergencyCenter (category theory)MedicineOperations researchComputer scienceTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe strategies employed during handoffs in four settings with high consequences for failure. ANALYSIS: of observational data for evidence of use of 21 handoff strategies. SETTING: NASA Johnson Space Center in Texas, nuclear power generation plants in Canada, a railroad dispatch center in the United States, and an ambulance dispatch center in Toronto. MAIN MEASURE: Evidence of 21 handoff strategies from observations and interviews. RESULTS: Nineteen of 21 strategies were used in at least one domain, on at least an 'as needed' basis. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of how handoffs are conducted in settings with high consequences for failure can jumpstart endeavors to modify handoffs to improve patient safety.

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)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations492
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Quality in Health CareSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207