Co-Design with Patients for Improving Patient Safety: Strategies, Barriers and pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What happens when "frontline" workers are patients and family members performing health-related tasks? As more and more complex healthcare tasks are performed by patients and family members, and more emphasis is placed on patient- and family-centered care, strategies are needed to engage patients and family members in co-design "work systems" and patient-professional collaborative work. Human factors professionals are well-equipped to apply participatory ergonomics to patient and collaborative tasks. However, there are a number of barriers and pitfalls in engaging patients in design. Moving from tokenism to meaningful engagement in research requires patience, constant reflection, and a commitment to codesign. Our panel will explore the continuum of engagement and strategies to move from tokenism to partnership to cocreation in patient safety research, ranging from ambulatory medication safety to diagnosis in the emergency department. Strategies and barriers are presented as a starting point to discuss how to achieve effective work system designs.
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 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 | 0.116 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".