MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115968274 · doi:10.36740/wlek202010131

SAFETY OF PATIENTS AND MEDICAL STAFF IN CURRICULA AND TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN UKRAINE

2020· article· en· W3115968274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Олександр Науменко, Yurii M. Skaletsky, Viacheslav L. Didkovskyy, Mykhailo M. Rigan, Oksana O. Maluk

Bibliographic record

VenueWiadomości Lekarskie · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumThematic analysisPatient safetySpecialtyMedical educationOccupational safety and healthNursingMedicineHealth careAnesthesiologyBioethicsAccreditationPsychologyFamily medicinePolitical sciencePedagogyQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim: The Canada and Poland experience in the educational field in the practical implementation of international practices for the prevention of patient safety incidents is significant, taking into consideration the effectiveness of health care models. We have to analyze the documents on the training of medical professionals in terms of safety as a first step in introducing into the domestic (Ukrainian) medical educational practice of existing international experience in teaching patient safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The research was based on international documents on patient safety, thematic scientific publications, plans, and programs for the training of medical professionals in Ukraine. Bibliosemantic, systems analysis, mathematical (relative values) research methods were used in the study. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The analysis of thematic plans of separate disciplines in "Nursing" specialty has shown, that according to experts, questions of safety of patients should contain more than in 70% of subjects; on the topics of classes safety issues are provided in the range from 45.1% (basics of nursing) to 0.0% (anesthesiology and resuscitation); the actual content of educational and methodical materials was from 14.6% (basics of nursing) to 0.0% (anesthesiology and resuscitation). The time allotted to study disciplines related to occupational safety and health of health workers (life safety, basics of bioethics and biosafety, as well as occupational safety in the industry) is six times higher than the hours of study of the discipline (medical law) related to patient safety in the Working Curriculum (second (master's) level of higher education in the field of knowledge 22 "health" specialty 222 "medicine"). As a result of the analysis of work programs of educational disciplines at all levels of medical specialists training, a sharp discrepancy in the new information support of the educational process was revealed in terms of patient safety.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiadomości LekarskieSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207