Exploring Canadians’ and Europeans’ Health Care Professionals’ Perception of Biological Risks, Patient Safety, and Professionals’ Safety Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient safety has become a worldwide concern in relation to infectious diseases (Ebola/severe acute respiratory syndrome/flu). During the pandemic, different sanitary responses were documented between Europe and North America in terms of vaccination and compliance with infection prevention and control measures. The purpose of this study was to explore the health care professionals' perceptions of biological risks, patient safety, and their practices in European and Canadian health care facilities. A qualitative-descriptive design was used to explore the perceptions of biological risks and patient safety practices among health care professionals in 3 different facilities. Interviews (n = 39) were conducted with health care professionals in Canada and Europe. The thematic analysis pinpointed 3 main themes: risk and infectious disease, patient safety, and occupational health and safety. These themes fit within safety cultures described by participants: individual culture, blame culture, and collaborative culture. The preventive terminology used in the European health care facility focuses on hospital hygiene from the perspective of environmental risk (individual culture). In Canadian health care facilities, the focus was on risk management for infection prevention either from a punitive perspective (blame culture) or from a collaborative perspective (collaborative culture). This intercultural dialogue described the contextual realities on different continents regarding the perceptions of health care professionals about risks and infections.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".