MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412755582 · doi:10.1002/jhrm.70009

Developing in situ large‐scale simulation strategies for enhanced patient safety

2025· article· en· W4412755582 on OpenAlexaff
Hadas Katz‐Dana, Ayelet Shles, Nir Friedman, Ortal Erez‐Granat, Rotem Shiri, Jabeen Fayyaz, Elad Dana, Ehud Rosenbloom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Healthcare Risk Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessPatient safetyScale (ratio)Action planHealth careTest (biology)Medical emergencyProcess managementNursingOperations managementMedicineBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition to a new emergency department (ED) facility can pose significant challenges to patient safety. This study utilized Colman et al.'s simulation-based clinical systems testing approach to identify latent safety threats (LSTs), ensure operational readiness, and enhance staff confidence in a newly constructed ED at an urban hospital. A three-stage framework comprising development, implementation, and evaluation phases was employed. A large-scale "day in a life" in situ simulation was conducted to test system integration and identify LSTs. Data from participants, observers, and facilitators were collected and analyzed to develop action plans. The simulation included 63 scenarios over 4 h, engaging 125 participants and 50 standardized patients. A total of 113 LSTs were identified, leading to the development of a detailed action plan. Feedback from staff was positive, with participants reporting increased confidence in providing safe patient care in the new facility. This approach successfully identified safety threats and enhanced staff preparedness, potentially informing future operational plans for transitions in healthcare facilities. The methodology and findings are generalizable to other healthcare facilities undergoing similar transitions, where system integration, safety evaluation, and staff readiness are key concerns.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Healthcare Risk ManagementSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207