Interprofessional Learning for Enhanced Patient Safety: Biomedical Engineering Students and Nursing Students in Joint Learning Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the last decade, research has highlighted the importance of interprofessional approaches to education and practice. Collaboration between medical practice and engineering has been identified as particularly relevant to developing accountable models for sustainable healthcare and overcoming increased specialization leading to professional barriers. This study aims to analyze insights and understanding expressed by nursing students and biomedical engineering students following a joint learning activity regarding a medical device used in the hospital setting.Method: A qualitative approach deriving from a phenomenological view examined an interprofessional learning activity where the focus was on active integration and knowledge exchange.Conclusion: The activity was expressed as a positive opportunity for getting insights into perspectives from other professional groups as well as insights into the importance of a system perspective in patient safety. The learning and insights listed in the evaluations included ideas about how the two professional groups could collaborate in the future.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".