Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28698328›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Evaluation of the organisation and effectiveness of internal audits to govern patient safety in hospitals: a mixed-methods study.

Saskia C van Gelderen, Marieke Zegers, Wilma Boeijen, Gert P Westert, Paul B Robben, Hub C Wollersheim

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care: results of a mixed-method evaluation (part 1).International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019
    Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Saskia C van GelderenRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marieke ZegersRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wilma BoeijenRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Quality and Safety, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gert P WestertRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Paul B RobbenErasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hub C WollersheimRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHospital boards are legally responsible for safe healthcare. They need tools to assist them in their task of governing patient safety. Almost every Dutch hospital performs internal audits, but the effectiveness of these audits for hospital governance has never been evaluated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the organisation of internal audits and their effectiveness for hospitals boards to govern patient safety. DESIGN AND

settingA mixed-methods study consisting of a questionnaire regarding the organisation of internal audits among all Dutch hospitals (n=89) and interviews with stakeholders regarding the audit process and experienced effectiveness of audits within six hospitals.

resultsResponse rate of the questionnaire was 76% and 43 interviews were held. In every responding hospital, the internal audits followed the plan-do-check-act cycle. Every hospital used interviews, document analysis and site visits as input for the internal audit. Boards stated that effective aspects of internal audits were their multidisciplinary scope, their structured and in-depth approach, the usability to monitor improvement activities and to change hospital policy and the fact that results were used in meetings with staff and boards of supervisors. The qualitative methods (interviews and site visits) used in internal audits enable the identification of soft signals such as unsafe culture or communication and collaboration problems. Reported disadvantages were the low frequency of internal audits and the absence of soft signals in the actual audit reports.

conclusionThis study shows that internal audits are regarded as effective for patient safety governance, as they help boards to identify patient safety problems, proactively steer patient safety and inform boards of supervisors on the status of patient safety. The description of the Dutch internal audits makes these audits replicable to other healthcare organisations in different settings, enabling hospital boards to complement their systems to govern patient safety.

Indexed as

Hospitals, PublicHumansMedical AuditNetherlandsPatient SafetyPolicyAUDITClinical governanceHealth & safetyHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTOrganisation of health servicesQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID28698328
PMCPMC5734458
OpenAlexW2735940066

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.