Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29282080›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

Safety analysis over time: seven major changes to adverse event investigation.

Charles Vincent, Jane Carthey, Carl Macrae, Rene Amalberti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Conceptual and practical challenges associated with understanding patient safety within community-based mental health services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Perceptions and Experiences of Consumer Representatives on Patient Safety Investigation Teams: A Qualitative Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 'They Take the Mum Off You When You Come In': An Ethnographic Study of Parent Experiences of Medicines Safety Systems in English Hospitals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Charles VincentDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 15 Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, UK. charles.vincent@psy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0270-0222
Jane CartheyJane Carthey Consulting, London, UK.
Carl MacraeDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 15 Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, UK.
Rene AmalbertiHaute Autorité de Santé, Paris, 5 Avenue du Stade de France, Saint-Denis, 93210, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvery safety-critical industry devotes considerable time and resource to investigating and analysing accidents, incidents and near misses. The systematic analysis of incidents has greatly expanded our understanding of both the causes and prevention of harm. These methods have been widely employed in healthcare over the last 20 years but are now subject to critique and reassessment. In this paper, we reconsider the purpose and value of incident analysis and methods appropriate to the healthcare of today. MAIN TEXT: The primary need for a revised vision of incident analysis is that healthcare itself is changing dramatically. People are living longer, often with multiple co-morbidities which are managed over very long timescales. Our vision of safety analysis needs to expand concomitantly to embrace much longer timescales. Rather than think only in terms of the prevention of specific incidents, we need to consider the balance of benefit, harm and risks over long time periods encompassing the social and psychological impact of healthcare as well as physical effects. We argued for major changes in our approach to the analysis of safety events: assume that patients and families will be partners in investigation and where possible engage them fully from the beginning, examine much longer time periods and assess contributory factors at different time points in the patient journey, be more proportionate and strategic in analysing safety issues, seek to understand success and recovery as well as failure, consider the workability of clinical processes as well as deviations from them and develop a much more structured and wide-ranging approach to recommendations.

conclusionsPrevious methods of incident analysis were simply adopted and disseminated with little research into the concepts, methods, reliability and outcomes of such analyses. There is a need for significant research and investment in the development of new methods. These changes are profound and will require major adjustments in both practical and cultural terms and research to explore and evaluate the most effective approaches.

Indexed as

Patient SafetySystems AnalysisData CollectionDocumentationFamilyHealth Services AdministrationHumansReproducibility of ResultsSafety ManagementTime FactorsIncident analysisPatient safetySafety interventions

Identifiers

PMID29282080
PMCPMC5745912

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.