Unveiling hidden connections: How social networks impact diversion in hospital emergency departments: An exploratory social network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to a lack of safeguards, controlled substances (CS) can be diverted (stolen) from healthcare facilities. While it is known that healthcare workers (HCWs) can use their social networks within the medication use process (MUP) to facilitate diversion, the specific connections between HCWs and the MUP tasks most vulnerable to diversion remain poorly understood. Social network analysis (SNA) was used to analyze social connections to identify influential relationships between HCWs and tasks susceptible to diversion.To map the social network structures of MUP tasks vulnerable to CS diversion in two Emergency Departments (EDs), identify influential tasks and HCWs, and report HCW perceptions of in-hospital diversion.This study used a mixed methods approach in the ED of two large hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Previously collected clinical observation data was used to identify tasks at risk of diversion, and cross-sectional surveys were conducted to assess HCW's involvement in the identified vulnerable tasks. A two-mode SNA was conducted to identify connections between HCWs and tasks susceptible to drug diversion.SNA identified a circular structure across both sites, highlighting the network's redundancy and capacity to efficiently disseminate information. Nurses were central to tasks with a higher risk of diversion. Physicians and Pharmacists had limited direct involvement in these tasks. Tasks with frequent interprofessional interactions, such as creating, following, or reviewing orders for non-admitted patients, are vulnerable to diversion due to HCWs acting on decisions made by other professionals without closely scrutinizing the details. No significant differences were observed between sites, suggesting a shared perception of diversion. The SNA results highlight the critical role of network structure in shaping vulnerability to diversion. The similarities across both sites suggest a systemic challenge across ED settings that require targeted interventions. By uncovering critical points of influence, we can better understand how diversion occurs and develop targeted interventions to prevent it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".