MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985348101 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003037

Nursing student patient safety errors in the practice domain: a scoping review protocol of the quantitative and qualitative evidence

2017· review· en· W2985348101 on OpenAlexaff
June Raymond, Christina Godfrey, Jennifer Medves, Amanda Ross‐White

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCambrian College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPatient safetyNear missNursingMedicineHealth careProtocol (science)Medical emergencyPsychologyAlternative medicineForensic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify the range of patient safety events that includes patient safety errors, harms or near misses that student nurses make while nursing in their clinical placements. The question that will guide this review is: what types of hazards, healthcare-associated harms, patient safety incidents, reportable circumstances, near misses, harmful incidents, no harm incidents and injuries to patients are being made and reported by nursing students during their practice in healthcare facilities?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.494
GPT teacher head0.680
Teacher spread0.186 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207