MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402222092 · doi:10.1177/2327857924131069

Applying Human Factors Methods to Improve Workflow Safety in Transitioning to a New Special Care Nursery Unit

2024· article· en· W4402222092 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carleene Bañez, Sandra Hall, Stefano Gelmi, Anthony Soung Yee, Nataly Farshait, Trevor J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsGuelph General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowUnit (ring theory)Computer scienceProcess managementPsychologyBusinessDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physical healthcare environment plays a pivotal role in shaping work processes, including workflow, equipment usage, human resources management, patient experience, and the ability of healthcare workers to provide safe care. Transitioning to a new space provides an opportunity to proactively identify and enhance safety measures for critical tasks and workflows. This paper presents a collaborative project between the Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada (HIROC) and Guelph General Hospital (GGH), aimed at improving workflow and workspace in GGH’s Special Care Nursery Unit (SCN) during its transition to a new space. The project was executed in two phases. Phase 1 involved contextual inquiry and observations over three days in the existing unit, which informed simulation scenarios of critical workflows and tasks. Phase 2 comprised simulation walkthroughs with 14 nurses in the new unit, conducted individually or in groups of up to four, to gather feedback. The data collected were used to identify opportunities to build resilience in the SCN, including considerations for improving communication and situation awareness. Survey results also indicated that participants found the simulations helpful for identifying areas to improve safety in the SCN.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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 topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207