Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26826151›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Improving the governance of patient safety in emergency care: a systematic review of interventions.

Gijs Hesselink, Sivera Berben, Thimpe Beune, Lisette Schoonhoven

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Measurement and monitoring patient safety in prehospital care: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Resilience in a prehospital setting - a new focus for future research?Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020
    Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Gijs HesselinkRegional Emergency Healthcare Network, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Radboud University Medical Center, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sivera BerbenRegional Emergency Healthcare Network, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Faculty of Health and Social Studies, Department of Emergency and Critical Care, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Thimpe BeuneRegional Emergency Healthcare Network, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lisette SchoonhovenRegional Emergency Healthcare Network, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Radboud University Medical Center, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands Faculty of Health Science, NIHR CLAHRC Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7129-3766

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review interventions that aim to improve the governance of patient safety within emergency care on effectiveness, reliability, validity and feasibility.

designA systematic review of the literature.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PsychInfo were searched for studies published between January 1990 and July 2014. We included studies evaluating interventions relevant for higher management to oversee and manage patient safety, in prehospital emergency medical service (EMS) organisations and hospital-based emergency departments (EDs). Two reviewers independently selected candidate studies, extracted data and assessed study quality. Studies were categorised according to study quality, setting, sample, intervention characteristics and findings.

resultsOf the 18 included studies, 13 (72%) were non-experimental. Nine studies (50%) reported data on the reliability and/or validity of the intervention. Eight studies (44%) reported on the feasibility of the intervention. Only 4 studies (22%) reported statistically significant effects. The use of a simulation-based training programme and well-designed incident reporting systems led to a statistically significant improvement of safety knowledge and attitudes by ED staff and an increase of incident reports within EDs, respectively.

conclusionsCharacteristics of the interventions included in this review (eg, anonymous incident reporting and validation of incident reports by an independent party) could provide useful input for the design of an effective tool to govern patient safety in EMS organisations and EDs. However, executives cannot rely on a robust set of evidence-based and feasible tools to govern patient safety within their emergency care organisation and in the chain of emergency care. Established strategies from other high-risk sectors need to be evaluated in emergency care settings, using an experimental design with valid outcome measures to strengthen the evidence base.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesFeasibility StudiesHumansPatient SafetyReproducibility of ResultsACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINEHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID26826151
PMCPMC4735318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.