Developing an appreciation of patient safety: analysis of interprofessional student experiences with health mentors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A critical task for health profession educators is to foster student appreciation of patient quality and safety issues. Although instructional methods vary, few focus on the direct communication of the patient experience to students. This qualitative study explores the experiences and learning of health profession students participating in a Safety Module in the Health Mentor Programme. METHODS: Small interprofessional groups of students were paired with a health mentor, an individual experiencing chronic health challenges. Students followed a 90-minute, semi-structured interview format exploring issues regarding quality care and safety. Following the interviews, students participated in a facilitated asynchronous online discussion and completed a reflective practice paper. An inductive thematic analysis of both of these text-based datasets revealed emerging themes. RESULTS: Themes identified in the data included: Patient partnerships as critical to optimal care; consideration of a variety of safety issues; importance of advocacy in promoting safety; improvement of future practice enabled through patient perspectives on clinical error; and embracing of interprofessional communication and collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that engagement with the health mentor narratives facilitated students' appreciation of quality and safety issues related to patient care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".