The Canadian Interprofessional Patient Safety Competencies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ensuring the safe care of patients in any health-care setting is paramount for all health-care professionals. Recent research has shown that there are thousands of preventable adverse events happening each year in health care. As a result of these findings, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute was established in 2003 with a mandate to ensure the safety of health care in Canada. METHODS: One strategy to assist with this goal was the development of an interprofessional competences framework to help improve patient safety across the health-care continuum. RESULTS: This paper will report on the framework development process, which resulted in the identification of 6 domains that represent overall patient safety competencies. The domains are as follows: (1) contribute to a culture of patient safety; (2) work in teams for patient safety; (3) communicate effectively for patient safety; (4) manage safety risks; (5) optimize human and environmental factors; and (6) recognize, respond to, and disclose adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The intent of this framework is that these domains, including the underlying knowledge, skills, and attitude competencies, can be applied to all health-care professionals in any setting. In addition, as one explores each competency, it is evident that an interprofessional approach is essential to ensuring 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it