Safety culture interventions in cancer care: A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
247 Background: Creation of a culture of safety in healthcare organizations is fundamentally important to patient safety. However, there is limited guidance on how to effectively promote a culture of safety in healthcare settings including in oncology. We performed a systematic review to identify interventions or strategies to promote safety culture in cancer care. Methods: Medical Subject Headings and text words for “safety culture” and “cancer care” were combined to conduct structured searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epub Ahead of Print & In-Process, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, for peer-reviewed articles published between 1999 and 2017. Articles were included if they described an intervention or strategy to promote safety culture in an oncology setting, and quantitative outcomes were reported. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. Results: We screened 21,572 studies, of which 46 underwent full-text review, and 19 met the inclusion criteria. Studies described interventions in radiation oncology (15 articles), medical oncology (3), and general oncology (1) settings in either North America (15) or Europe (4). The most common experimental designs were interrupted time series (10) or before-and-after comparisons (6), and were of either moderate (89%) or severe (11%) risk of bias. Interventions varied but could be broadly categorized as incident learning systems (8), quality improvement programs (7), provider education programs (2), a provider scheduling system (1), and a patient safety champion intervention (1). While 89% of studies reported improvement in safety culture, there was substantial heterogeneity in evaluated outcomes. Most assessed provider outcomes such as number of reported adverse events (11) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Culture survey results (7). Conclusions: Despite a growing evidence base to identify interventions to promote safety culture in cancer care, definitive recommendations were difficult to make due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes. Given the importance of safety culture in cancer care, additional high-quality studies and standardization of outcome measures are needed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".