Perspectives on Patient Safety Among Practical Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Practical nursing students are students enrolled in a two-year college practical nursing diploma program. They are responsible for providing safe patient care to the patients they care for. Assessing students' perceptions of their own patient safety competencies can help educators identify gaps in their knowledge and skills and identify, at a curricula level, the concepts and information required to improve the quality of their care. Purpose To explore practical nursing students' confidence in what they are learning about patient safety within their nursing education. Methods This cross-sectional descriptive study used a modified version of the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey. Results Overall, students expressed the greatest confidence in their abilities to provide care in Clinical Safety topics. More than 75% of the students' feared punishment when making an error and 88% have difficulty questioning other healthcare providers. Less than 30% of students stated that a system-level focus on errors was taught to them in their education programs. Conclusions More investigation is needed to understand what practical nursing students' fear about the provision of safe care. Additional focus on systems aspects of hazard identification and the prevention of errors needs to be present in nursing education programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".