ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2020
The introduction of a safety checklist in two UK hospital emergency departments: A qualitative study of implementation and staff use.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an Emergency Department Safety Checklist through a global consensus process.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Guideline
- High alert medications off the radar: A systematic review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Review
- The introduction of a safety checklist in two UK hospital emergency departments: A qualitative study of implementation and staff use.Journal of clinical nursing · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectivesTo explore the extent to which a checklist designed to support patient safety in hospital Emergency Departments was recognised and used by staff.
backgroundPatient crowding in UK Emergency Departments makes it difficult for staff to monitor all patients for signs of clinical deterioration. An Emergency Department Safety Checklist was developed at a UK hospital to ensure patients are regularly monitored. It was subsequently implemented in six hospitals and recommended for use across the National Health Service in England.
methodsThis was a qualitative study in two UK hospital Emergency Departments. Data collection consisted of sixty-six hours of nonparticipant observation and interviews with twenty-six staff. Observations were sampled across different days and times. Interviews sampled a range of staff. Data were analysed thematically. The study was undertaken in accordance with COREQ guidelines.
resultsStaff described the Emergency Department Safety Checklist as a useful prompt and reminder for monitoring patients' vital signs and other aspects of care. It was also reported as effective in communicating patient care status to other staff. However, completing the checklist was also described as a task which could be overlooked during busy periods. During implementation, the checklist was promoted to staff in ways that obscured its core function of maintaining patient safety.
conclusionsThe Emergency Department Safety Checklist can support staff in maintaining patient safety. However, it was not fully recognised by staff as a core component of everyday clinical practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The Emergency Department Safety Checklist is a response to an overcrowded environment. To realise the potential of the checklist, emergency departments should take the following steps during implementation: (a) focus on the core function of clinical safety, (b) fully integrate the checklist into the existing workflow and (c) employ a departmental team-based approach to implementation and training.
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.