Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651541›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient safety2021

Next-of-Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part II: The Inspectors' Perspective).

Siri Wiig, Lene Schibevaag, Rannveig Tvete Zachrisen, Einar Hannisdal, Janet E Anderson, Cecilie Haraldseid-Driftland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Involving Service Users in Care Regulation: A Scoping Review of Empirical Literature.International journal of health policy and management · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Using the stress-vulnerability model to better understand suicide in prison populations.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The patient died: What about involvement in the investigation process?International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2020
    Article
  19. 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.

Siri WiigFrom the SHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger.
Lene SchibevaagFrom the SHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger.
Rannveig Tvete ZachrisenFrom the SHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger.
Einar HannisdalCounty Governor Oslo and Akershus, Oslo, Norway.
Janet E AndersonFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Cecilie Haraldseid-DriftlandFrom the SHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the study was to explore regulatory inspectors' experiences with a new method for next-of-kin involvement in investigation of adverse events causing patient death. A resilient healthcare perspective is used as the theoretical foundation.

methodsThe study design was a qualitative process evaluation of the new involvement method in 2 Norwegian counties. Next of kin, who had lost a close family member in an adverse event, were invited to a 2-hour face-to-face meeting with the inspectors. Data collection involved 3 focus group interviews with regulatory inspectors and observation (20 hours) of the meetings (2017-2018). Data were analyzed by a thematic content analysis.

resultsNext-of-kin involvement informed the investigations by additional and new information about the adverse events and by different versions of the investigators' earlier obtained information, such as time sequences, what happened and how, and who were involved. Inspectors considered next of kin as a key source of information that contributed to improve the quality of the investigation. The downside was that the involvement method increased work load and could challenge the principle of equal treatment in regulatory practice.

conclusionsInvolvement of next of kin in regulatory investigation of adverse events causing patient death contributes to a better understanding of work as done in clinical practice and contributes to strengthen the learning potential in resilience.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareFamilyFocus GroupsHumansQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID31651541
PMCPMC8612908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.