@WhatNowDoc@implausibleblog Lol. Just holding up a mirror for you, Mr Angry "Cloth Ears" on 'both sides' who is suddenly now surprised that these 'objectionable' behaviors aren't going to bring out the best in people.
@WhatNowDoc@implausibleblog I'm fine, thanks Mr "I'm so Angry Right Now" from Remdesivir that "killed 54% of the people who took it" lol. Keep up the not voting. Especially in elections you don't understand. About topics you're too ignorant, gullible and misled to contribute meaningfully to.
Trevor Kletz (whose work I’ve become a big fan of lately) would apparently often repeat “There's an old saying that if you think safety is expensive, try an accident.”
I wish more would understand this.
@haroldthimbleby Yes..this is true. Most grants are a straight rejection. The process here is that you get feedback on why you were scored down. You have to respond, but there's a strong chance you'll get different reviewers next time with different criticisms. Often scores are worse 2nd time.
Responding to a grant when the reviewers clearly don't have the faintest clue about safety science (because of the chronic misunderstandings continually perpetuated in healthcare) is no fun. How do you address "Encoding information on labels means people won't read it" nonsense?
@DrGetafix Literally, "Where's the evidence that color and shape make a difference?". It's like "where's the evidence that teamwork makes a difference?" from the 00's.
@bruce_lambert Thank you - this is helpful. But it's much more of a chronic problem esp mistaking errors for harm and applying linear determinism to complex adaptive systems. It's like studying checklists based on counting aircraft accidents, or road fatalities based on people not indicating.
@DeakinSue1 I'm definitely getting tired... especially when it seems misconceptions build on one another to move us backwards. Also, the USA is definitely a more challenging environment to want to change......
It's tragic and frustrating how healthcare continues to ignore the lessons of safety science, human factors, joint cognitive systems, and complex adaptation, instead doubling down on simplistic notions of "error", blame, trying harder, person vs system, and linear determinism.
@ctoddkicker1@ri_cook@ddwoods2 Funnily enough, this tweet came about writing a review where I've suggested the authors read Richard Cook...because counting errors and mistaking them for harm was always a fool's errand.
@DeakinSue1 Yes....change seems to happen only through 'drip feed' of ideas over time via close everyday relationships. Frustratingly slow. Been hoping for 20 years to see safety scientists teaching in medical schools and working with committees and leadership of royal colleges etc.
@JamesTitcombe Clinicians need to recognize that they can't do it themselves. "Whereas the use of nonexperts to provide clinical care would be viewed as negligence, the use of nonexperts in patient safety is the standard of care"
https://t.co/BbZP3eBGJj