Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29912469›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2019

Effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care: results of a mixed-method evaluation (part 1).

Mirelle Hanskamp-Sebregts, Marieke Zegers, Gert P Westert, Wilma Boeijen, Steven Teerenstra, Petra J van Gurp, Hub Wollersheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Process evaluation of the effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care (part 2).International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019
    Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Mirelle Hanskamp-SebregtsRadboud University Medical Center, Institute of Quality Assurance and Patient Safety, PO Box 9101 (internal code 628), Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marieke ZegersDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 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.
Wilma BoeijenDepartment of Quality and Safety, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Steven TeerenstraDepartment for Health Evidence, Group Biostatistics, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Petra J van GurpDepartment of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Hub WollersheimRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of internal auditing in hospital care focussed on improving patient safety. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsA before-and-after mixed-method evaluation study was carried out in eight departments of a university medical center in the Netherlands. INTERVENTION(S): Internal auditing and feedback focussed on improving patient safety. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The effect of internal auditing was assessed 15 months after the audit, using linear mixed models, on the patient, professional, team and departmental levels. The measurement methods were patient record review on adverse events (AEs), surveys regarding patient experiences, safety culture and team climate, analysis of administrative hospital data (standardized mortality rate, SMR) and safety walk rounds (SWRs) to observe frontline care processes on safety.

resultsThe AE rate decreased from 36.1% to 31.3% and the preventable AE rate from 5.5% to 3.6%; however, the differences before and after auditing were not statistically significant. The patient-reported experience measures regarding patient safety improved slightly over time (P < 0.001). The SMR, patient safety culture and team climate remained unchanged after the internal audit. The SWRs showed that medication safety and information security were improved (P < 0.05).

conclusionsInternal auditing was associated with improved patient experiences and observed safety on wards. No effects were found on adverse outcomes, safety culture and team climate 15 months after the internal audit.

Indexed as

Hospitals, TeachingHumansLinear ModelsMedical AuditMedical ErrorsMedical RecordsNetherlandsPatient SafetyQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareSafety ManagementSurveys and Questionnairesauditeffect evaluation studyhospitalspatient safety

Identifiers

PMID29912469
PMCPMC6839373

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.