Evaluating recall of key safety messages, and attitudes and perceptions of a patient safety initiative at a pediatric hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Involving inpatients in their safety and well-being is becoming increasingly common. Interventions have been developed to encourage patients to be active in their own safety, but published evaluations are scarce. The Patient Safety Ambassador (PSA) program was developed to increase patient and parent/guardian engagement and knowledge in patient safety. This study aimed to determine recall ability of key safety messages and explore attitudes and perceptions towards the PSA program, hence obtaining feedback for program improvements. Participants were pediatric inpatients and parents of inpatients. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted. Cued and non-cued recall ability was determined using questions with and without specific cues, while attitudes and perceptions were explored using open-ended questions regarding patient safety. QSR NVivo 10 software was used to analyze interviews for recall ability and major themes. 95% of parents could remember all safety messages with cues, but could only remember one (35%) or two (32.5%) messages without cues. Inpatient participants could remember up to 4 messages with cues, no messages without cues, and, unlike parents, were unable to discuss their attitudes and perceptions towards safety. Five major themes emerged from analysis of interviews with parents: the importance of medication knowledge, parental involvement in care, having trust in healthcare team, asking questions, and advocacy. Use of cues appears beneficial in facilitating recall of safety messages. Parents had varied attitudes and perceptions to safety. Future research can explore methods to engage pediatric inpatients, integrate cues to increase recall, and examine resulting behavioural changes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".