Patient Involvement in Patient Safety: A Qualitative Study of Nursing Staff and Patient Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The risk associated with receiving health care has called for an increased focus on the role of patients in helping to improve safety. Recent research has highlighted that patient involvement in patient safety practices may be influenced by patient perceptions of patient safety practices and the perceptions of their health care providers. The objective of this research was to describe patient involvement in patient safety practices by exploring patient and nursing staff perceptions of safety. METHODS: Qualitative focus groups were conducted with a convenience sample of nursing staff and patients who had previously completed a patient safety survey in 2 tertiary hospital sites in Eastern Canada. Six focus groups (June 2011 to January 2012) were conducted and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Four themes were identified: (1) wanting control, (2) feeling connected, (3) encountering roadblocks, and (4) sharing responsibility for safety. Both patient and nursing staff participants highlighted the importance of building a personal connection as a precursor to ensuring that patients are involved in their care and safety. However, perceptions of provider stress and nursing staff workload often reduced the ability of the nursing staff and patient participants to connect with one another and promote involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Current strategies aimed at increasing patient awareness of patient safety may not be enough. The findings suggest that providing the context for interaction to occur between nursing staff and patients as well as targeted interventions aimed at increasing patient control may be needed to ensure patient involvement in 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".