Sowing a Seed of Safety: Providing Culturally Safe Care in Acute Care Settings for People who use Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the concept of cultural safety from the perspective of people who use illicit drugs and nurses in a hospital setting. Background Illicit drug use is often highly stigmatized and people who use illicit drugs often report negative healthcare experiences contributing to inequities in health and access to healthcare. Registered nurses play a key role in the delivery of healthcare when people who use drugs are hospitalized but often face difficulties in the provision of care. We explored understandings and meanings of cultural safety in healthcare as an approach to mitigate stigma and to promote health equity. Design and Methods Within an overall participatory approach to the research, we employed a qualitative ethnographic approach undertaking 275 hours of participant observation and conducting 34 open-ended interviews with 15 patients and 19 nurses on two acute care hospital units in 2012 and 2013. Result/Findings: Culturally safe care requires recognizing stereotypes and power imbalances; prioritizing trust and building relationships as important outcomes; giving patients space and time; and addressing conflicting organizational values and policies. Conclusions Providing culturally safe care requires organizational culture shifts that recognize the importance of historical, societal, and political forces that influence the way in which illicit drug use and people who use illicit drugs are constructed in society.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".