Development and Implementation of a Safety Incident Report System for Health Care Discipline Students During Clinical Internships: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a fundamental aspect of health care practice across global health systems. Safe practices, which include incident reporting systems, have proven valuable in preventing the recurrence of safety incidents. However, the accessibility of this tool for health care discipline students is not consistent, limiting their acquisition of competencies. In addition, there is no tools to familiarize students with analyzing safety incidents. Gamification has emerged as an effective strategy in health care education. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop an incident reporting system tailored to the specific needs of health care discipline students, named Safety Incident Report System for Students. Secondary objectives included studying the performance of different groups of students in the use of the platform and training them on the correct procedures for reporting. METHODS: This was an observational study carried out in 3 phases. Phase 1 consisted of the development of the web-based platform and the incident registration form. For this purpose, systems already developed and in use in Spain were taken as a basis. During phase 2, a total of 223 students in medicine and nursing with clinical internships from universities in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Spain received an introductory seminar and were given access to the platform. Phase 3 ran in parallel and involved evaluation and feedback of the reports received as well as the opportunity to submit the students' opinion on the process. Descriptive statistics were obtained to gain information about the incidents, and mean comparisons by groups were performed to analyze the scores obtained. RESULTS: The final form was divided into 9 sections and consisted of 48 questions that allowed for introducing data about the incident, its causes, and proposals for an improvement plan. The platform included a personal dashboard displaying submitted reports, average scores, progression, and score rankings. A total of 105 students participated, submitting 147 reports. Incidents were mainly reported in the hospital setting, with complications of care (87/346, 25.1%) and effects of medication or medical products (82/346, 23.7%) being predominant. The most repeated causes were related confusion, oversight, or distractions (49/147, 33.3%) and absence of process verification (44/147, 29.9%). Statistically significant differences were observed between the mean final scores received by country (P<.001) and sex (P=.006) but not by studies (P=.47). Overall, participants rated the experience of using the Safety Incident Report System for Students positively. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents an initial adaptation of reporting systems to suit the needs of students, introducing a guided and inspiring framework that has garnered positive acceptance among students. Through this endeavor, a pathway toward a safety culture within the faculty is established. A long-term follow-up would be desirable to check the real benefits of using the tool during education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05350345; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05350345.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, 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".