ArticleBMC health services research2015
How can we improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device-related incidents in hospitals? A qualitative study of physicians and registered nurses.
Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and dynamics in reporting medical device incidents: a qualitative study.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- A MAUDE database analysis on the new generation of active bone conduction hearing implants.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Analysis of health care professionals' incident reports on medical devices in Croatia.Croatian medical journal · 2023Article
- Materiovigilance in Perspective: Understanding Its Concept and Practice in the Global Healthcare System.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Review
- Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices.BMJ quality & safety · 2018Article
- Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Materiovigilance among Nurses at a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo explore factors that influence and to identify initiatives to improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of device-related incidents.
methodsSemi-structured telephone interviews with 16 health professionals in two tertiary care hospitals were conducted. Purposive sampling was used to identify appropriate study participants. Transcribed interviews were read independently by one individual to identify, define and organize themes and verified by another reviewer.
resultsThemes related to incident recognition were the hospital staff's knowledge and professional experience, medical device performance and clinical manifestations of patients, while incident reporting was influenced by error severity, personal attitudes of clinicians, feedback received on the error reported. Physicians often discontinued using medical devices if they malfunctioned. Education and training and the implementation of registries were discussed as important initiatives to improve medical device surveillance in clinical practice.
conclusionsResults from the telephone interviews suggest that multiple factors that influence participation in medical device surveillance activities are consistent with results for medical errors as reported in previous studies. The study results helped to propose a conceptual framework for a medical device surveillance system in a hospital context that would enhance patient safety and health care delivery.
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.