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.
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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence on the links between patient experience and safety: a systematic review.BMJ open quality · 2026Pooled it
- 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Factors contributing to the patient safety culture in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- 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 · 2018Pooled it
- Healthcare Professional's Perception of Patient Safety Measured by the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2018Pooled it
- Portuguese Version of the MISSCARE Survey-Patient: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Relationship between patient safety culture and patient experience in hospital settings: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Associations between patient safety culture and workplace safety culture in hospital settings.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- How does staff and patient feedback on hospital quality relate to mortality outcomes? A provider-level national study.Health services management research · 2024Article
- Data-driven clinical improvement: Oncology nurse leaders' perceptions and experiences of organisational data reports.Journal of nursing management · 2022Article
- Assessing patient experience with patient safety in primary care: development and validation of the ASK-ME-questionnaire.BMJ open · 2022Article
- To what extent are patients involved in researching safety in acute mental healthcare?Research involvement and engagement · 2022Review
- ASK ME!-Routine measurement of patient experience with patient safety in ambulatory care: A mixed-mode survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- Measuring and monitoring perioperative patient safety: a basic approach for clinicians.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2020Review
- Patient safety in ambulatory care from the patient's perspective: a retrospective, representative telephone survey.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Can patients contribute to safer care in meetings with healthcare professionals? A crossBMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- A qualitative positive deviance study to explore exceptionally safe care on medical wards for older people.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Development and performance evaluation of the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT): a prognostic model to target hospital pharmacists' input to prevent medication-related problems.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.