MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323764313 · doi:10.1097/jce.0b013e318223cc0f

Human Factors Tools and Tips for Clinical Engineers

2011· article· en· W2323764313 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood and drug administrationPatient safetyThe InternetClinical engineeringHealth careComputer scienceMedicineMedical emergencyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Human factors is a term that is being heard with increasing frequency in the healthcare setting. What does it mean? How is it relevant to clinical engineering? And how can a clinical engineer identify and track human factors problems and report them to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? The following article addresses these and other questions and aims to provide clinical engineers with a better understanding of the science of human factors and how it can be used to improve patient safety. The information presented below is a summary of an educational Web cast entitled "Human Factors: Tools and Tips for Clinical Engineers and Medical Device Users" that was organized by FDA's Medsun program. (The Medical Device Safety Network [Medsun] is an important patient safety initiative that builds relationships with the clinical community to better understand device-related problems. The program consists of a network of 350 US healthcare facilities that use an Internet-based adverse event reporting system to notify FDA of existing and potential problems with medical devices.) A replay is available online at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/MedSunMedicalProductSafetyNetwork/ucm112724.htm. This article also summarizes information from FDA's human factors Web site, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HumanFactors/ucm124851.htm. Human factors is a term that is being heard with increasing frequency in the healthcare setting. What does it mean? How is it relevant to clinical engineering? And how can a clinical engineer identify and track human factors problems and report them to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? The following article addresses these and other questions and aimed to provide clinical engineers with a better understanding of the science of human factors and how it can be used to improve patient safety. The information presented below is a summary of an educational Web cast entitled "Human Factors: Tools and Tips for Clinical Engineers and Medical Device Users" that was organized by FDA's Medsun program. (The Medical Device Safety Network [Medsun] is an important patient safety initiative that builds relationships with the clinical community to better understand device-related problems. The program consists of a network of 350 US healthcare facilities that use an Internet-based adverse event reporting system to notify FDA of existing and potential problems with medical devices.) A replay is available online at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/MedSunMedicalProductSafetyNetwork/ucm112724.htm. This article also summarizes information from FDA's human factors Web site, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/HumanFactors/ucm124851.htm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.695
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.086 · 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