Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25354689›Full record

Trial reportTrials2014

Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Laura Sheard, Jane O'Hara, Gerry Armitage, John Wright, Kim Cocks, Rosemary McEachan, Ian Watt, Rebecca Lawton, Yorkshire Quality & Safety Research Group

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. "Change is what can actually make the tough times better": A patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. A qualitative formative evaluation of a patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura SheardYorkshire Quality & Safety Research Group, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford BD9 6RJ, England. laura.sheard@bthft.nhs.uk.
Jane O'Hara
Gerry Armitage
John Wright
Kim Cocks
Rosemary McEachan
Ian Watt
Rebecca Lawton
Yorkshire Quality & Safety Research Group
Bradford Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of York · GBUniversity of Bradford · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0108-10049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need to engage with patients about the quality and safety of their care has never been more evident with recent high profile reviews of poor hospital care all emphasising the need to develop and support better systems for capturing and responding to the patient perspective on their care. Over the past 3 years, our research team have developed, tested and refined the PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention, which gains patient feedback about quality and safety on hospital wards. METHODS/

designA multi-centre, cluster, wait list design, randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. The aim is to assess the efficacy of the PRASE intervention, in achieving patient safety improvements over a 12-month period.The trial will take place across 32 hospital wards in three NHS Hospital Trusts in the North of England. The PRASE intervention comprises two tools: (1) a 44-item questionnaire which asks patients about safety concerns and issues; and (2) a proforma for patients to report (a) any specific patient safety incidents they have been involved in or witnessed and (b) any positive experiences. These two tools then provide data which are fed back to wards in a structured feedback report. Using this report, ward staff are asked to hold action planning meetings (APMs) in order to action plan, then implement their plans in line with the issues raised by patients in order to improve patient safety and the patient experience.The trial will be subjected to a rigorous qualitative process evaluation which will enable interpretation of the trial results.

methodsfieldworker diaries, ethnographic observation of APMs, structured interviews with APM lead and collection of key data about intervention wards. Intervention fidelity will be assessed primarily by adherence to the intervention via scoring based on an adapted framework. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the largest patient safety trials ever conducted, involving 32 hospital wards. The results will further understanding about how patient feedback on the safety of care can be used to improve safety at a ward level. Incorporating the 'patient voice' is critical if patient feedback is to be situated as an integral part of patient safety improvements.

trial registrationISRCTN07689702, 16 Aug 2013.

Indexed as

HospitalsPatient ParticipationPatient SafetyResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesEnglandFeedback, PsychologicalHumansMedical ErrorsPatientsPerceptionProcess Assessment, Health CareRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSafety ManagementTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25354689
PMCPMC4229607
OpenAlexW2105636469

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.