MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098513346 · doi:10.1177/0951484820971455

A systems approach to address the impact of second victim phenomenon

2020· article· en· W3098513346 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brenda Gamble, Kathleen Gamble

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Management Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonHealth carePatient safetyPublic relationsHealthcare systemNursingOrganizational cultureSafety cultureBusinessMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade, second victim phenomenon (SVP) has been identified as a serious issue for healthcare workers (HCWs). Results from a 2018 survey of Canadian HCWs demonstrated that the majority of those who responded had experienced SVP and indicated that there was a lack of support in the workplace. The overall objectives of this paper are to a) heighten the awareness about SVP and its impact on HCWs and 2) to recommend an organizational/systems approach to support HCWs as second victims. This will be accomplished by first defining SVP and its relationship to patient safety. We will apply a health geography framework which incorporates the concepts of location, place, human interaction, movement and region to demonstrate the variability across care settings and the need for a systems approach to support HCWs. A human geography approaches to SVP would allow policymakers, leadership teams and managers within a health care setting to uniquely tailor their support systems to their individual contexts, which in turn will create a workplace culture of safety that builds on the organization's unique qualities.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services Management ResearchSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207