ArticleJournal of patient experience2020
Patients' Perspectives on the Quality and Safety of Intravenous Infusions: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective analysis of preventable procedural adverse events (ICD-10 Y62-Y69) in the TriNetX network: a multiregional study before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Peripheral intravenous catheters: the impact of compliance with standards on patient-reported experience measures.Anaesthesia and intensive care · 2026Article
- Patients' Perspective of Medication Safety in Hungary: A Netnography-Based Mixed-Method Content Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Therapeutic value in the time of digital brainwaves.Social studies of science · 2024Article
- Analysis of the Integrated Management Model of Medical Care and Medication in Intravenous Treatment for Critically Ill Patients.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Indwelling experience and coping strategies of upper arm infusion ports in patients with cancer: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Experiences of children with central venous access devices: a mixed-methods study.Pediatric research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe administration of medication or fluids via the intravenous route is a common intervention for many hospital inpatients. However, little research has explored the safety and quality of intravenous therapy from the patient's perspective, despite the role of the patient in patient safety receiving increased attention in recent years.
objectiveTo explore patients' perspectives on the perceived quality and safety of intravenous infusions and identify implications for practice.
methodQualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 35 hospital patients receiving intravenous infusions in critical care, oncology day care, general medicine, and general surgery areas within 4 National Health Service hospitals in England. Data were analyzed thematically.
resultsFour underlying and interlinked themes were identified: knowledge about intravenous infusions, challenges associated with receiving intravenous infusions, the role of health-care professionals, and patients' attitudes toward receiving infusions.
conclusionsPatients were generally satisfied with receiving infusions; however, factors that contributed to decreased feelings of quality and safety were identified, suggesting areas for intervention. Issues to do with infusion pump alarms, reduced mobility, cannulation, and personal preferences for information, if given more attention, may improve patients' experiences of receiving intravenous infusions.
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.