How patients view their contribution as partners in the enhancement of patient safety in clinical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the call from the World Health Organization for more active involvement from patients in the prevention of health care-related risks, there is still insufficient evidence about how patients can be more proactive in the safety of their own care. This study helps understand the perspective of patients as partners regarding their roles, as well as their relatively untapped potential in detecting and limiting adverse events (AEs) for patient safety. 17 patients-as-partners were interviewed on five themes: 1) Behavior of patients/relatives for avoiding AEs; 2) Competencies sought in patients/relatives to play an active role in patient safety; 3) Factors limiting or facilitating the role of patients in the safety of their own care; 4) The Partnership in Care approach as a way of limiting the occurrence of AEs. Patients-as-partners revealed several key behaviours that helped patients avoid AEs: proactivity; communication; trust; vigilance; reporting and flagging; being accompanied by relatives, being accompanied by health professionals. Furthermore, several competencies helped as well: being curious, observant, responsible, able to trust, respectful, and diplomatic. Finally, factors facilitating and limiting patient engagement in safety included personal characteristics, information, interpersonal relations, and organisational aspects. Through the Partnership in Care approach, patients-as-partners develop behaviours and competencies which are yet to be directly applied to improve patient safety. However, obstacles remain: the engagement and official training of patients-as-partners and their appropriate roles in safety, including the identification of AEs; and finally, the redefinition of AEs so as to include the patients’ point of view and experiences.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".