Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30137381›Full record

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).

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

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Reducing Injection-Related Safety Events in Retina Clinics.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022
    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
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mirelle Hanskamp-SebregtsRadboud University Medical Center, Institute of Quality Assurance and Patient Safety, HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marieke ZegersRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wilma BoeijenRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Quality and Safety, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hub WollersheimRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Petra J van GurpRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, 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.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient SafetyAcademic Medical CentersHumansNetherlandsProcess Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementSafety Managementaudithospitalspatient safetyprocess evaluation study

Identifiers

PMID30137381
PMCPMC6819993
OpenAlexW2887792478

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.