MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317828653 · doi:10.2196/43538

Safe Medication in Nursing Home Residents Through the Development and Evaluation of an Intervention (SAME): Protocol for a Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Study With a Cocreative Approach

2023· article· en· W4317828653 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie Haase Juhl, Ann Lykkegaard Soerensen, Jette Kolding Kristensen, Anne Estrup Olesen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVelux Fonden
KeywordsProtocol (science)NursingIntervention (counseling)Nursing homesMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineMedical educationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medication safety is increasingly challenging patient safety in growing aging populations. Developing positive patient safety cultures is acknowledged as a primary goal to improve patient safety, but evidence on the interventions to do so is inconclusive. Nursing home residents are often cognitively and physically impaired and are therefore highly reliant on frontline health care providers. Thus, interventions to improve medication safety of nursing home residents through patient safety culture among providers are needed. Using cocreative partnerships, integrating knowledge of residents and their relatives, and ensuring managerial support could be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the Safe Medication of Nursing Home Residents Through Development and Evaluation of an Intervention (SAME) study is to improve medication safety for nursing home residents through developing an intervention by gaining experiential knowledge of patient safety culture in cocreative partnerships, integrating knowledge of residents and their relatives, and ensuring managerial support. METHODS: The fully integrated mixed method study will be conducted using an integrated knowledge translation approach. Patient safety culture within nursing homes will first be explored through qualitative focus groups (stage 1) including nursing home residents, their relatives, and frontline health care providers. This will inform the development of an intervention in a multidisciplinary panel (stage 2) including cocreators representing the medication management process across the health care system. Evaluation of the intervention will be done in a randomized controlled trial set at nursing homes (stage 3). The primary outcome will be changes in the mean scale score of an adapted version of the Danish "Safety Attitudes Questionnaire" (SAQ-DK) for use in nursing homes. Patient safety-related outcomes will be collected through Danish health registers to assess safety issues and effects, including medication, contacts to health care, diagnoses, and mortality. Finally, a mixed methods analysis on patient safety culture in nursing homes will be done (stage 4), integrating qualitative data (stage 1) and quantitative data (stage 3) to comprehensively understand patient safety culture as a key to medication safety. RESULTS: The SAME study is ongoing. Focus groups were carried out from April 2021 to September 2021 and the workshop in September 2021. Baseline SAQ-DK data were collected in January 2022 with expected follow-up in January 2023. Final data analysis is expected in spring 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The SAME study will help not only to generate evidence on interventions to improve medication safety of nursing home residents through patient safety culture but also to give insight into possible impacts of using cocreativity to guide the development. Thus, findings will address multiple gaps in evidence to guide future patient safety improvement efforts within primary care settings of political and scientific scope. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04990986; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04990986. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43538.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.014

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 head0.604
GPT teacher head0.732
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207