MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964699959 · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000686

Exploring stakeholder perceptions around implementation of the Operating Room Black Box for patient safety research: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework

2019· article· en· W2964699959 on OpenAlexaff
Cole Etherington, Aya Usama, Andrea M. Patey, Chantal Trudel, Antoine Przybylak‐Brouillard, Justin Presseau, Jeremy Grimshaw, Sylvain Boet

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Quality · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderPatient safetyQualitative researchContext (archaeology)PsychologyMedical educationMedicineNursingPublic relationsHealth carePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Systematically observing clinical performance in the operating room (OR) to support patient safety initiatives faces numerous logistical and methodological challenges. These may be solved by new audio-video recording technologies like the OR Black Box, which is a tool similar to black boxes in aviation. This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers that may influence patients', clinicians' and senior leadership team members' support of the OR Black Box in order to guide its future implementation. METHODS: Patients, clinicians and senior leadership team members were recruited to participate in semistructured interviews informed by the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to identify factors relevant to planning OR Black Box implementation. Deidentified interview transcripts were analysed in duplicate following a TDF coding structure. RESULTS: Data saturation was achieved at 15 patients, 17 clinicians and 9 senior leadership team members. Seven domains were relevant for patients, nine for clinicians and four for senior leadership. Knowledge and Beliefs about consequences were barriers and enablers for all three groups. Memory, attention and decision processes and Social influences were enablers for both clinicians and senior leadership. Environmental context and resources, Emotion and Behavioural regulation were found to be barriers and enablers for both clinicians and patients. Social/professional role and identity and Reinforcement were enablers for patients only and Optimism and Intentions were barriers and enablers to clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: While most stakeholders were supportive of the OR Black Box, we identified many key areas that need to be addressed during its implementation. It is critical to ensure all stakeholders have adequate and accurate information about the OR Black Box system and research goals, and that the OR Black Box is positioned as a patient safety initiative for learning from and improving practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.769
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open QualitySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207