Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28101668›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2017

Results of a population-based-assessment: we need better communication and more profound patient involvement.

Gerald Sendlhofer, Gudrun Pregartner, Karina Leitgeb, Magdalena Hoffmann, Andrea Berghold, Christian Smolle, Gernot Brunner, Lars Peter Kamolz

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gerald SendlhoferExecutive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 1, 8036, Graz, Austria. gerald.sendlhofer@klinikum-graz.at.
Gudrun PregartnerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Karina LeitgebExecutive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 1, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Magdalena HoffmannExecutive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 1, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Andrea BergholdInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Christian SmolleResearch Unit for Safety in Health, Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Gernot BrunnerAustrian Society for Quality and Safety in Healthcare (ASQS), Graz, Austria.
Lars Peter KamolzResearch Unit for Safety in Health, Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Medical University of Graz · ATAgency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation Austria · ATGraz University Hospital · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Austria several regulations were published in order to support initiatives to increase patient safety. Since then, many patient safety projects were implemented in Austrian hospitals; therefore, it was the aim of the current survey to examine the perceptions of Austrian citizens with respect to topics relevant to patient safety.

methodsBetween 8 and 22 October 2015 a qualitative cross-sectional telephone interview study was performed. A sample of citizens above 14 years of age was randomly drawn. The survey contained 6 questions. In each of the nine states of Austria, a representative number of citizens were interviewed.

resultsIn total 1021(female: 52.3%) telephone interviews were performed and 249 (24.7%) citizens stated that trust/confidence in patient safety is very high, 571 (55.9%) assessed the reputation of a hospital as very important and 739 (72.4%) stated that a detailed explanation of the treatment as well as information on associated risk factors and possibilities of further treatments is very important. Of the respondents 722 (70.7%) stated that patient safety measures in a given hospital are very important, 807 (79.0%) stated that it is important to be informed about patient safety measures and 547 (53.6%) stated that if something did not satisfactorily function they would complain to the hospital. Significant differences occurred for states with and without university hospitals.

conclusionThe results of the survey give cause for concern as the majority of interviewed citizens have medium or low trust/confidence in patient safety. Furthermore, more than two-thirds of Austrian citizens revealed that detailed explanation of treatment, information on associated risk factors, information about patient safety measures to predict medical errors and information about patient safety measures which are in place in a hospital are very important. The study showed that patient safety is an important topic for Austrian citizens and they want to be informed and involved. The study also indicated the need to promote patient safety aspects and to decrease the number of people who are not confident concerning patient safety in Austrian hospitals.

Indexed as

CommunicationNeeds AssessmentPublic OpinionTrustAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustriaFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth LiteracyHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedCommunicationPatient involvementPatient safetyPerceptionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID28101668
PMCPMC5399065
OpenAlexW2572405637

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.