Are Parents Who Feel the Need to Watch Over Their Children’s Care Better Patient Safety Partners?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many parents report needing to watch over their child's hospital care to prevent mistakes. In this study, we assessed whether needing to watch over care predicts parent performance of recommended safety behaviors to reduce medication errors and health care-associated infections. METHODS: At admission, we surveyed 170 parents about their need to watch over care, demographics, and hospitalization factors. At discharge, parents were surveyed about medication awareness and hand hygiene behaviors. Logistic regression was used to examine how parents' need to watch over care predicted each behavior, adjusting for demographics and hospitalization factors. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of parents reported needing to watch over care. Most parents (77%) reported frequently or very frequently asking providers for drug names or doses. Fewer parents asked to check drug or infusion accuracy (29%) or to show or read aloud medication labels (21%). Few parents reminded providers to clean hands (4%), but most stated they would be comfortable asking (82%) and likely to speak up if a provider did not (78%). After adjustment, parents needing to watch over care were significantly more likely to ask providers to check drug or infusion accuracy (adjusted odds ratio = 4.59, 95% confidence interval 2.14-9.94) and for drug name or dose (adjusted odds ratio = 3.04, 95% confidence interval 1.25-7.39). CONCLUSIONS: Parents who report the need to watch over care are more likely to perform behaviors specific to safe medication use (but not hand hygiene) compared with those not reporting this need. Opportunities exist to engage parents as safety partners by leveraging their need to watch over care toward system-level safety initiatives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".