Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26217399›Full record

ArticleLondon journal of primary care2015

Can we learn from the Mid-Staffordshire Inquiry or is it always someone else's problem?

Alison While

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in London journal of primary care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alison WhileEmeritus Professor of Community Nursing, King's College London, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key messagesEvery healthcare practitioner has a responsibility to put the well-being of patients first.Every healthcare practitioner has a responsibility in the maintenance of healthcare quality and each must take appropriate actions when alerted to poor standards.You cannot assume others will follow up patient concerns and take appropriate actions - the 'buck' stops with every practitioner on a professional register. WHY THIS MATTERS TO ME: The regrettable events at Stafford Hospital were avoidable and reading the inquiry report highlighted the extent to which the NHS, and those within it, neglected their duties of care. I was particularly ashamed of my Registered Nurse colleagues who appear to have forgotten that registration as a nurse requires attitudes and behaviours commensurate with the public trust that is attributed to their role. The shocking truth that emerges from the Francis Report(1) is that no organisation or profession emerges with any credit whatsoever - the Deanery, universities, general practitioners (GPs), the General Medical Council (GMC), the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), Monitor…. It is clear that any number of healthcare professionals could have challenged what was happening and alerted the relevant regulatory and supervisory organisations. Those organisations could have then discharged their 'duties' rather than taking a benevolent and optimistic view of the emerging evidence and leaving it to others to act.

Identifiers

PMID26217399
PMCPMC4494471
OpenAlexW2435903640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.