Surveillance and patient safety in nursing research: A bibliometric analysis from 1993 to 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To identify and characterize the thematic foci, structure and evolution of nursing research on surveillance and patient safety. DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. METHODS: Bibliometric methods were employed to analyse 1145 articles, using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer software. DATA SOURCE: The Scopus bibliographic database was searched on April 7, 2023. RESULTS: A keyword co-occurrence analysis found the most frequently occurring keywords to be: patient safety, nursing, nurses, adverse events, monitoring, critical care, quality improvement, vital signs, safety, alarm fatigue, education, nursing care, surveillance, clinical alarms, failure to rescue, evidence-based practice, acute care, clinical deterioration, communication, intensive care. Network mapping, clustering and time-tracking of the keywords revealed the focal themes, structure and evolution of the research field. CONCLUSION: By assessing critical areas of the nursing research field, this study extends and enriches the current discourse on surveillance and patient safety for nursing researchers and practitioners. Critical challenges still have to be met by nurses, however, including the failure to rescue deteriorating patients. Further knowledge and understanding of surveillance and patient safety must be successfully translated from research to practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: This study highlights the gaps in nursing knowledge with regard to surveillance and patient safety and encourages nursing professionals to turn to evidence-based surveillance practices. IMPACT: In addressing the problem of surveillance and its effect on patient safety, this study found that, in most clinical care settings, preventing failures to rescue and adverse patient outcomes still remains a challenge for the nursing profession. This study should have an impact on nursing academics' future research themes and on nursing professionals' future clinical practices. REPORTING METHOD: Relevant EQUATOR guidelines have been adhered to by employing recognized bibliometric reporting methods.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.219 | 0.330 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".