MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402340531 · doi:10.1080/00140139.2024.2396527

A systems approach to managing the risk of healthcare acquired infection in an acute hospital setting supported by human factors ergonomics, data science, data governance and AI

2024· article· en· W4402340531 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Ward, Úna Geary, Rob Brennan, Rebecca Vining, Lucy McKenna, Brian O’Connell, Colm Bergin, Declan Byrne, Donncha Creagh, Una Healy, Grainne McDonald, Malick Ebiele, Martin Crane, Minh-Khoi Pham, Malika Bendechache, Marija Bezbradica, Junli Liang, Brian Doyle, John Guilfoyle, Arwa Shuhaiber, Nick McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersTrinity College DublinEuropean Regional Development FundDublin City UniversityScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsHuman factors and ergonomicsHealth careCorporate governanceMedicineEngineeringKnowledge managementMedical emergencyPoison controlComputer scienceBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovative approaches are needed for managing risk and system change in healthcare. This paper presents a case study of a project that took place over two years, taking a systems approach to managing the risk of healthcare acquired infection in an acute hospital setting, supported by an Access Risk Knowledge Platform which brings together Human Factors Ergonomics, Data Science, Data Governance and AI expertise. Evidence for change including meeting notes and use of the platform were studied. The work on the project focused on first systematically building a rich picture of the current situation from a transdisciplinary perspective. This allowed for understanding risk in context and developing a better capability to support enterprise risk management and accountability. From there a linking of operational and risk data took place which led to mapping of the risk pattern in the hospital.

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)0.005
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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomicsSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207