What became of the ‘eyes and the ears’?: exploring the challenges to reporting poor quality of care among trainee medical staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of trainee medical staff in alerting Trusts to patient safety risks and low-quality care was established by the Francis Report, yet many remain hesitant about speaking up. Known barriers include lack of feedback, sceptical attitudes to the likelihood of change and fear of consequences. The author explores other factors including moral orientation in the workplace, role modelling by senior clinicians, discontinuity, 'normalisation of deviance', human reactions to burnout/moral injury, loyalty and the spectrum of motivation. The issues of absent feedback and fear are discussed in detail. Challenges met by those receiving reports are also described, such as how to collate soft intelligence, putting concerns into context (the 'bigger picture') and stewardship of resources. Initiatives to encourage reporting of trainees' concerns such as speak up guardians, 'Speak Up for Safety' campaign and simulation training are described. A proposal to embed proactive intelligence-gathering arrangements is presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".