Operating Room Black Box (ORBB): Examining Nurses’ Perceptions in a Surgical Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundDespite numerous efforts to improve surgical safety, adverse events and serious surgical complications are still common. This cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Ontario, Canada, aimed to examine nurses' perceptions, awareness, comfort, and readiness to use Operating Room Black Box (ORBB) technology, implemented to reduce surgical errors.MethodsA mixed method was used and data was collected through a 14-item questionnaire in summer 2022.ResultsAmong 50 nurse participants, nurses with work experience <20 years had higher overall mean scores on 9 questions than nurses working >20 years. The majority (88.0%) had no prior ORBB experience but somewhat agreed that ORBB had the potential to improve the safety culture in the operating room.ConclusionOverall, nurses demonstrated positive attitudes towards ORBB technology, indicating its potential to enhance safety culture, team communication, teamwork, situational awareness, feedback on performance, the debriefing process, transparency, and lead to technological advancements in healthcare.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".