Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32209593›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2020

Development and application of 'systems thinking' principles for quality improvement.

Duncan McNab, John McKay, Steven Shorrock, Sarah Luty, Paul Bowie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Developing a Co-Produced Practice Framework to Support Personalised Safety Planning for Adults Experiencing Suicidality.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Parental involvement in paediatric patient safety incidents in general practice: a cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Duncan McNabMedical Directorate, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
John McKayMedical Directorate, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Steven ShorrockEUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium.
Sarah LutyMedical Directorate, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Paul BowieMedical Directorate, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK paul.bowie@nes.scot.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction'Systems thinking' is often recommended in healthcare to support quality and safety activities but a shared understanding of this concept and purposeful guidance on its application are limited. Healthcare systems have been described as complex where human adaptation to localised circumstances is often necessary to achieve success. Principles for managing and improving system safety developed by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL; a European intergovernmental air navigation organisation) incorporate a 'Safety-II systems approach' to promote understanding of how safety may be achieved in complex work systems. We aimed to adapt and contextualise the core principles of this systems approach and demonstrate the application in a healthcare setting.

methodsThe original EUROCONTROL principles were adapted using consensus-building methods with front-line staff and national safety leaders.

resultsSix interrelated principles for healthcare were agreed. The foundation concept acknowledges that 'most healthcare problems and solutions belong to the system'. Principle 1 outlines the need to seek multiple perspectives to understand system safety. Principle 2 prompts us to consider the influence of prevailing work conditions-demand, capacity, resources and constraints. Principle 3 stresses the importance of analysing interactions and work flow within the system. Principle 4 encourages us to attempt to understand why professional decisions made sense at the time and principle 5 prompts us to explore everyday work including the adjustments made to achieve success in changing system conditions.A case study is used to demonstrate the application in an analysis of a system and in the subsequent improvement intervention design.

conclusionsApplication of the adapted principles underpins, and is characteristic of, a holistic systems approach and may aid care team and organisational system understanding and improvement.

Indexed as

Systems AnalysisAdultEducationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality Improvementcomplexityhuman factorsquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID32209593
PMCPMC7103793

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.