MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143909368 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2010.21970

Building Safer Systems through Critical Occurrence Reviews: Nine Years of Learning

2010· article· en· W2143909368 on OpenAlexaffabout
Polly Stevens, Lynn Urmson, J. A. Campbell, Rita Damignani

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERLegislationMedicineMedical emergencyGovernment (linguistics)Public healthPatient safetyBusinessEnvironmental healthNursingHealth careComputer securityPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), the term critical occurrence was developed to describe any event that results in an actual or potential serious, undesirable and unexpected patient or staff outcome including death or major permanent loss of function, not related to the natural course of the patient's illness or underlying condition. It also includes a breach of legislation including the Personal Health Information Protection Act of Ontario. Although broader in its definition, the term aligns closely with critical incident as defined within the amendments to Regulation 965, under the Public Hospitals Act (Government of Ontario 1990). Critical occurrences may include (but are not limited to) potential or actual adverse outcomes (including death) associated with or resulting from medication errors; a wrong site, patient or procedure performed; contaminated drugs, devices or products; an equipment malfunction; an outbreak or unusual pattern/type of nosocomial infection; employee actual or potentially serious injuries.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207