A Qualitative Study of Attitudes Toward Error in Patients Facing Brain Tumour Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical error is an extremely important component of patient safety and requires intense study. The present investigation undertook to examine patients' perceptions and attitudes regarding medical error. METHODS: Qualitative case study methodology was used. We conducted 30 face-to-face interviews with patients within one week of undergoing a neurosurgical operation for a brain tumour. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed and the data subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes emerged from the data: 1) trust in the patient's surgeon was of paramount importance; 2) patients' views toward medical error varied between fear and vulnerability to no concern; and 3) discussion of error was felt to be beneficial as it could help the medical profession decrease future errors and could help dispel the patient's fear and anxiety about the upcoming surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' trust in their physician/surgeon is of paramount importance in allaying their fears about the possible occurrence and impact of medical error during their treatment. The level of concern about error varies among patients, but most felt that discussion of error was a good thing.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".