Care partner engagement in patient safety at the direct care level in hospital: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to understand the experiences of care partner engagement in patient safety at the direct care level from the perspective of care partners, patients, and health care professionals. INTRODUCTION: Care partner engagement is a strategy for promoting patient safety in hospitals at the direct care level (ie, at the point where patient care is delivered). When present, care partners can increase safety by watching, listening, and taking action to protect admitted patients. To improve care partner presence policies and safety engagement strategies within hospitals, a comprehensive understanding of the current qualitative evidence about the breadth of experiences of care partner engagement in patient safety is required. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include qualitative studies that consider the experiences of care partners, adult patients, and health care professionals. The engagement of care partners in patient safety within pediatric hospital settings will not be considered. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. A preliminary literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and a full search strategy was developed for MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO (all via Ovid), as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI Evidence Synthesis . The JBI approach to study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of confidence will be followed. Two reviewers will test the screening criteria and data extraction protocol. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023476286.
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 | 0.137 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.009 |
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".