MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402221192 · doi:10.1177/2327857924131048

Leveraging Expertise to Improve Safety – Insights and Lessons Learned From Collaborative Applied Human Factors Safety Work in a Maternal Neonatal Care Setting

2024· article· en· W4402221192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carleene Bañez, K. Subramaniam, Silva Nercessian, Anthony Soung Yee, Katrina Engel, Ashley Slomka, Stefano Gelmi, Nataly Farshait, Terri Stuart McEwan, Trevor Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyWork (physics)Computer scienceMedicineProcess managementPsychologyEngineeringHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaboration across Canada’s healthcare system is critical to improving safety in the high-risk area of maternal neonatal care. Oak Valley Health (OVH) and the Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada (HIROC) collaborated on two applied safety projects, leveraging expertise from both organizations. These projects sought to identify opportunities to improve teamwork, communication and workflow across the Childbirth and Children’s Service program at OVH. In Project 1, human factors specialists from HIROC implemented a series of front-line-focused ownership techniques to understand opportunities to improve teamwork and communication to support patient safety across the program. In Project 2, the study team used observations to map nurses’ movement during obstetrical triage and conducted a perceived mental workload assessment of nursing staff in the obstetrical triage area. We discuss the approach and results, as well as lessons learned from this collaborative work that can be shared in other healthcare contexts. Key learnings include insights into project scoping, and leveraging the clinical, human factors and other expertise from multiple organizations to proactively improve safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health CareSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207