Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25862755›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2015

Can staff and patient perspectives on hospital safety predict harm-free care? An analysis of staff and patient survey data and routinely collected outcomes.

Rebecca Lawton, Jane Kathryn O'Hara, Laura Sheard, Caroline Reynolds, Kim Cocks, Gerry Armitage, John Wright

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Patient involvement in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review of current interventions.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Safety Culture Through Patient Voice: Qualitative Validation of the Patients' Perceptions of Safety Culture Scale (PaPSC) in Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Rebecca LawtonInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Department of Quality and Safety Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Jane Kathryn O'HaraDepartment of Quality and Safety Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Laura SheardDepartment of Quality and Safety Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Caroline ReynoldsDepartment of Quality and Safety Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Kim CocksDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, York, UK.
Gerry ArmitageSchool of Health, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
John WrightDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Royal Infirmary Bradford, Bradford, UK.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundPatients have the potential to provide feedback on the safety of their care. Recently, tools have been developed that ask patients to provide feedback on those factors that are known to contribute to safety, therefore providing information that can be used proactively to manage safety in hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the safety information provided by patients is different from that provided by staff and whether it is related to safety outcomes.

methodData were collected from 33 hospital wards across 3 acute hospital Trusts in the UK. Staff on these wards were asked to complete the four outcome measures of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, while patients were asked to complete the Patient Measure of Safety and the friends and family test. We also collated publicly reported safety outcome data for 'harm-free care' on each ward. This patient safety thermometer measure is used in the UK NHS to record the percentage of patients on a single day of each month on every ward who have received harm-free care (ie, no pressure ulcers, falls, urinary tract infections and hospital acquired new venous thromboembolisms). These data were used to address questions about the relationship between measures and the extent to which patient and staff perceptions of safety predict safety outcomes.

resultsThe friends and family test, a single item measure of patient experience was associated with patients' perceptions of safety, but was not associated with safety outcomes. Staff responses to the patient safety culture survey were not significantly correlated with patient responses to the patient measure of safety, but both independently predicted safety outcomes. The regression models showed that staff perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.39) and patient perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.30) of safety independently predicted safety outcomes. When entered together both measures accounted for 49% of the variance in safety outcomes (adjusted r(2)=0.49), suggesting that there is overlap but some unique variance is also explained by these two measures. Based on responses to the Patient Measure of Safety it was also possible to identify differences between the acute Hospital Trusts. DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that although the views of patients and staff predict some overlapping variance in patient safety outcomes, both also offer a unique perspective on patient safety, contributing independently to the prediction of safety outcomes. These findings suggest that feedback from patients about the safety of the care that they receive can be used, in addition to data from staff to drive safety improvements in healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07689702.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackPatient ParticipationPatient SafetyAdultFemaleHealth Care SurveysHospitalsHumansMaleMedical Staff, HospitalMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionPredictive Value of TestsSafety ManagementUnited KingdomHealth services researchPatient-centred carePatient safetySafety cultureSurveys

Identifiers

PMID25862755
PMCPMC4453491

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.