Trial reportQuality & safety in health care2004
Acceptability of identification bracelets for hospital inpatients.
Trial report in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of an electronic fingerprint-linked data collection system: a feasibility and acceptability study among Zambian female sex workers.Globalization and health · 2015Article
- Patient assessments of a hypothetical medical error: effects of health outcome, disclosure, and staff responsiveness.Quality & safety in health care · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether hospitalised patients would agree to wear an identification bracelet and whether patient acceptability is improved by more detailed explanations or by using a code instead of a name on the bracelet.
designPatient survey that tested two variables in a randomised factorial design. Explanations about identification bracelets were given (a) with or without examples of situations where patient identification may be important, and (b) with the patient name or an anonymous code appearing on the bracelet.
settingSwiss teaching hospital where wearing of identification bracelets was not systematic.
participantsAdult patients discharged from hospital (n = 1411).
main outcome measuresPatients' responses to the questions: (a) should the hospital introduce a compulsory identification bracelet? and (b) would the patient agree to wear such a bracelet?
resultsGlobally, 83.9% of patients thought that the hospital should introduce bracelets and 90.2% stated that they would agree to wear one. Providing examples increased support for both the hospital policy (87.9% v 79.2%, p<0.001) and personal acceptance (92.2% v 88.1%, p = 0.015). Whether or not the bracelet carried the patient's name or an anonymous code did not influence patient choice.
conclusionsThe majority of patients were in favour of wearing an identification bracelet during their hospital stay. This proportion increased significantly when an explanation based on examples of the consequences of incorrect patient identification had been provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.