MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042389206 · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000479

Utilizing Simulation to Identify Latent Safety Threats During Neonatal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Procedure

2020· article· en· W3042389206 on OpenAlex
Jonathan Wong, Kaarthigeyan Kalaniti, Michael Castaldo, Hilary Whyte, Kyong‐Soon Lee, Manohar Schroff, Douglas M. Campbell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingPatient safetyPreparednessMagnetic resonance imagingAnticipation (artificial intelligence)SedationMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceMedical emergencyHealth careArtificial intelligenceRadiologySurgeryMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Transfer of infants for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) requires exposure to unfamiliar environments and involve multiple complex human and system interactions, which can compromise patient safety. In situ simulation (ISS) offers an opportunity to identify latent safety threats (LSTs) that may occur during this high-risk procedure. Our primary aim was to use ISS to identify modifiable LSTs during the MRI procedure: involving neonatal transport to/from NICU to the MRI and the MRI scan. Secondarily, we compared the overall performance and needs of specialized versus nonspecialized transport personnel. METHODS: In situ simulations of the MRI procedure (transport and scan) were performed for 9 months involving specialized and nonspecialized transport personnel. Two simulation scenarios were used, one involving an intubated infant and one nonintubated infant. After each simulation, participants underwent a standardized debriefing and answered questionnaires on safety threats and team function. The results were then used to identify and implement mitigation strategies. RESULTS: Among 10 simulations completed, 7 were by specialized and 3 by nonspecialized teams. In total, 116 LSTs were identified (22 involving medication, 12 equipment, and 82 resources/system issues). Preprocedure deliberation with anticipation/preparedness for patient deterioration, and the need for clinical checklists and protocols were identified as important requirements. After completion of the project, protocols (ie, sedation), checklists (ie, pretransport), and policies (ie, environmental orientation) were adapted to address the gaps. CONCLUSIONS: In situ simulations were able to identify important safety risks during transport of neonatal patients from the NICU to the MRI suite, informing changes in MRI transport policy.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.344 · 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