Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16435469›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2005

Managing risk: a taxonomy of error in health policy.

Paul Joyce, Ruth Boaden, Aneez Esmail

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paul JoyceManchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester.
Ruth Boaden
Aneez Esmail

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper discusses the current initiatives on error and adverse events within healthcare, with a particular focus on the NHS, within the context of health policy. One of the key features of the paper is the proposal for an emergent taxonomy of the medical error literature, developed from the ideologies and rationales that underpin their approaches. This taxonomy provides details of three categories--empiricists, organisational rationalists and reformers of professional culture--and these act as an organising framework for the exploration of the potential consequences of current policy on errors and adverse events. This discussion highlights the tension between optimising health outcomes for patients and managing the health system as effectively as possible. In particular, the inherent tension between explicit managerial formulations of risk and implicit risk management strategies associated with medical professionalism are considered.

Indexed as

Health PolicyClassificationHumansMedical ErrorsRisk ManagementSafetyState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.