Exploring the Professional Responsibility Concern Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Registered nurses are pivotal in the analysis, recognition, and reporting of patient safety issues before harm occurs to patients. Little has been written about the relationship between the professional responsibility of reporting safety concerns and the processes that exist. PROBLEM: More needs to be known about how nurses can best report factors in work environments that impact patient safety. Learning more about processes that exist amidst literature that illuminates the issues related to reporting and patient safety culture is needed. Also, best practice or key exemplars depicting how professional responsibility has been implemented are needed. Limited has been written exploring professional responsibility concern processes in Canada and internationally. APPROACH: We completed a case study exploration comprising a public facing Web site scan of information about professional responsibility-like processes across Canada, as well as an extensive literature search exploring factors that are linked with nurse reporting of patient safety concerns. CONCLUSION: Themes from related literature identify patient safety culture, leadership qualities, communication, positive nurse factors, speaking up, and whistle-blowing as important aspects that facilitate, or are related to, the ability for nurses to express professional responsibility concerns. Alberta has a well-developed system of reporting such concerns; however, the lack of research and literature on these topics requires additional focus in nursing internationally.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".