Sci‐Fri AM: Quality, Safety, and Professional Issues 06: An Evaluation of Incident Reporting and Learning using the Canadian National System for Incident Reporting – Radiation Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on the development and clinical deployment of an in‐house incident reporting and learning system that implements the taxonomy of the Canadian National System for Incident Reporting – Radiation Treatment (NSIR‐RT). In producing our new system, we aimed to: Analyze actual incidents, as well as potentially dangerous latent conditions. Produce recommendations on the NSIR‐RT taxonomy. Incorporate features to divide reporting responsibility among clinical staff and expedite incident categorization within the NSIR‐RT framework. Share anonymized incident data with the national database. Our multistep incident reporting workflow is focused around an initial report and a detailed follow‐up investigation. An investigator, chosen at the time of reporting, is tasked with performing the investigation. The investigation feature is connected to our electronic medical records database to allow automatic field population and quick reference of patient and treatment information. Additional features include a robust visualization suite, as well as the ability to flag incidents for discussion at monthly Risk Management meetings and task ameliorating actions to staff. Our system was deployed into clinical use in January 2016. Over the first three months of use, 45 valid incidents were reported; 31 of which were reported as actual incidents as opposed to near‐misses or reportable circumstances. However, we suspect there is ambiguity within our centre in determining the appropriate event type, which may be arising from the taxonomy itself. Preliminary trending analysis aided in revealing workflow issues pertaining to storage of treatment accessories and treatment planning delays. Extensive analysis will be undertaken as more data are accrued.
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 | 0.051 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".