MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330757874 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2016.24547

Patient Safety Incident Reporting: Current Trends and Gaps Within the Canadian Health System

2016· article· en· W2330757874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Boucaud, Danielle Dorschner

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyBest practiceCurrent (fluid)Healthcare systemMedicineBusinessPolitical sciencePublic relationsNursingHealth careEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient safety incidents are a national-level phenomenon, requiring a pan-Canadian approach to ensure that incidents are reported and lessons are learned and broadly disseminated. This work explores the variation in current provincial and local approaches to reporting through a literature review. Trends are consolidated and recommendations are offered to foster better alignment of existing systems. These include adopting a common terminology, defining the patient role in reporting, increasing system users' perception of safety and further investigating the areas of home and community care in ensuring standard approaches at the local level. These steps can promote alignment, reducing barriers to a future pan-Canadian reporting and learning system.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207