Patients’ perception of safety in four hospitals in Tamaulipas, Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the perceived patient safety related to health care during hospitalization. To identify the number of patients who report having suffered a clinical error and describe the patients’ experience with the clinical error.Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study performed of patients who were hospitalized between August-November 2013 in four second-level hospitals.Results: A total of 631 patients were surveyed. Regarding the errors suffered during the hospitalization, 7.9% of the patients reported having suffered a complication, 7.9% reported having an infection, 5.2% had an allergic reaction to medication and 5.1% had to undergo a second surgery. Regarding the patients’ responses about the experience with the error, only 4.8% of the patients reported having had experiencing clinical error in their management, 1.9% mentioned that they fully agreed that the error was solved quickly, 2.5% that the error was solved satisfactorily and 3.3% patients disagreed as they were not informed if steps would be taken to prevent the error from recurring.Conclusions: To address safety culture in the hope of improving patient safety will continue to motivate nurse researchers and managers thus more research about patient perception is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".