Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31806015›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Networked information technologies and patient safety: a protocol for a realist synthesis.

Justin Keen, Joanne Greenhalgh, Rebecca Randell, Peter Gardner, Justin Waring, Roberta Longo, Jon Fistein, Maysam Abdulwahid, Natalie King, Judy Wright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Justin KeenLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England. j.keen@leeds.ac.uk.
Joanne GreenhalghSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Rebecca RandellSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Peter GardnerSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Justin WaringHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.
Roberta LongoLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England.
Jon FisteinLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England.
Maysam AbdulwahidLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England.
Natalie KingLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England.
Judy WrightLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/16/53/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a widespread belief that information technologies will improve diagnosis, treatment and care. Evidence about their effectiveness in health care is, however, mixed. It is not clear why this is the case, given the remarkable advances in hardware and software over the last 20 years. This review focuses on interoperable information technologies, which governments are currently advocating and funding. These link organisations across a health economy, with a view to enabling health and care professionals to coordinate their work with one another and to access patient data wherever it is stored. Given the mixed evidence about information technologies in general, and current policies and funding, there is a need to establish the value of investments in this class of system. The aim of this review is to establish how, why and in what circumstances interoperable systems affect patient safety.

methodsA realist synthesis will be undertaken, to understand how and why inter-organisational systems reduce patients' clinical risks, or fail to do so. The review will follow the steps in most published realist syntheses, including (1) clarifying the scope of the review and identifying candidate programme and mid-range theories to evaluate, (2) searching for evidence, (3) appraising primary studies in terms of their rigour and relevance and extracting evidence, (4) synthesising evidence, (5) identifying recommendations, based on assessment of the extent to which findings can be generalised to other settings. DISCUSSION: The findings of this realist synthesis will shed light on how and why an important class of systems, that span organisations in a health economy, will contribute to changes in patients' clinical risks. We anticipate that the findings will be generalizable, in two ways. First, a refined mid-range theory will contribute to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that, for a range of information technologies, lead to changes in clinical practices and hence patients' risks (or not). Second, many governments are funding and implementing cross-organisational IT networks. The findings can inform policies on their design and implementation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017073004.

Indexed as

Information TechnologyResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicHumansInformation ServicesPatient SafetyHealth information exchangeHealth services researchInformation technologyPatient safetyRealist synthesisSystematic reviewSystems integration

Identifiers

PMID31806015
PMCPMC6896666

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.