ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2019
Process evaluation of the effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care (part 2).
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of a tailored implementation strategy for audit-generated improvements in perinatal care.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Reducing Injection-Related Safety Events in Retina Clinics.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- 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 · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify factors that explain the observed effects of internal auditing on improving patient safety. DESIGN SETTING AND
participantsA process evaluation study within eight departments of a university medical centre in the Netherlands. INTERVENTION(S): Internal auditing and feedback for improving patient safety in hospital care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Experiences with patient safety auditing, percentage implemented improvement actions tailored to the audit results and perceived factors that hindered or facilitated the implementation of improvement actions.
resultsThe respondents had positive audit experiences, with the exception of the amount of preparatory work by departments. Fifteen months after the audit visit, 21% of the intended improvement actions based on the audit results were completely implemented. Factors that hindered implementation were short implementation time: 9 months (range 5-11 months) instead of the 15 months' planned implementation time; time-consuming and labour-intensive implementation of improvement actions; and limited organizational support for quality improvement (e.g. insufficient staff capacity and time, no available quality improvement data and information and communication technological (ICT) support).
conclusionsA well-constructed analysis and feedback of patient safety problems is insufficient to reduce the occurrence of poor patient safety outcomes. Without focus and support in the implementation of audit-based improvement actions, quality improvement by patient safety auditing will remain limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.