MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415475650 · doi:10.1681/asn.202509kffmm0

Novel Approach to Patient Safety Education in Nephrology: Integrating the Ottawa Morbidity and Mortality Model with the Health Care Matrix

2025· article· en· W4415475650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Spencer Hodgins, Ann Hinckley, Daniel L. Landry, Gregory L. Braden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyCore competencyHealth careInterpersonal communicationMEDLINEBest practiceGraduate medical educationPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The 2016 ACGME National CLER Report highlighted widespread deficiencies in patient safety education across residency and fellowship programs, urging “intensive improvement” through interprofessional, team-based strategies to achieve sustainable change. In response, we implemented a novel educational model in our nephrology fellowship to address these gaps by integrating the Ottawa M&M model with the Health Care Matrix. Methods: Over the past six years, we have conducted structured morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences using a combined format: patient safety cases selected using Ottawa M&M criteria—including death, disability, harm, near misses, preventable events, and systems issues—are analyzed through the Health Care Matrix, which maps each case onto the six ACGME core competencies (CC): Patient Care (PC), Medical Knowledge (MK), Interpersonal and Communication Skills (ICS), Professionalism (PRO), Systems-Based Practice (SBP), and Practice-Based Learning and Improvement (PBLI). Each conference includes three or more interprofessional teams led by nephrology faculty. Cases are discussed through the lens of core competencies, emphasizing communication breakdowns and system failures. Figure 1 shows the proportion of cases with repeat deficiencies by core competency. Results: Discordance between teams often revealed deficiencies in ICS, PRO, and SBP. These domains were commonly implicated in recurring safety lapses. At each conference’s conclusion, teams reached consensus on targeted, competency-based recommendations to improve safety practices. Conclusion: This integrated educational model fosters a comprehensive, competency-driven understanding of patient safety. Beyond enhancing MK, it highlights the vital roles of PRO, ICS, and SBP in advancing a culture of safety. Our experience suggests that combining the Ottawa M&M framework with the Health Care Matrix offers a reproducible and impactful method for embedding patient safety into nephrology fellowship training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→