Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19342522›Full record

ArticleQuality & safety in health care2009

Market-based control mechanisms for patient safety.

E Coiera, J Braithwaite

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Beyond patient safety Flatland.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

E CoieraCentre for Health Informatics, Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Australia. e.coiera@unsw.edu.au
J Braithwaite

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new model is proposed for enhancing patient safety using market-based control (MBC), inspired by successful approaches to environmental governance. Emissions trading, enshrined in the Kyoto protocol, set a carbon price and created a carbon market--is it possible to set a patient safety price and let the marketplace find ways of reducing clinically adverse events? To "cap and trade," a regulator would need to establish system-wide and organisation-specific targets, based on the cost of adverse events, create a safety market for trading safety credits and then police the market. Organisations are given a clear policy signal to reduce adverse event rates, are told by how much, but are free to find mechanisms best suited to their local needs. The market would inevitably generate novel ways of creating safety credits, and accountability becomes hard to evade when adverse events are explicitly measured and accounted for in an organisation's bottom line.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEnvironmental PollutionGovernment RegulationHumansMedical ErrorsSafetySafety Management

Identifiers

PMID19342522
PMCPMC2657889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.