ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2021
Enabling patient safety awareness using the Green Cross method: A qualitative description of users' experience.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Green Planet: development and early evaluation of a novel method for climate actions in clinical practice.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Learning from patient safety incidents: The Green Cross method.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
- Effect of the Green Cross method on patient safety culture in a postanaesthesia care unit: a longitudinal quasi-experimental study.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Green Cross method in a postanaesthesia care unit: a qualitative study of the healthcare professionals' experiences after 3 years, including the COVID-19 pandemic period.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Experience of learning from everyday work in daily safety huddles-a multi-method study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe Green Cross method was developed to support healthcare staff in daily patient safety work. The aim of this study was to describe users' experiences of the method when working with patient safety and their views on the core elements.
backgroundPatient safety systems need to be user-friendly to facilitate learning from adverse events. The Green Cross method is described as a simple visual method to recognise risks and preventable adverse events (PAEs) in real time. There are no previous studies describing users' experiences of the Green Cross method.
designA qualitative descriptive design.
methods32 healthcare workers and managers from different specialties in a Swedish hospital were interviewed, from May-September 2018 about their experiences of the Green Cross method; either individually or as part of a group. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. The study follows the COREQ guidelines for qualitative data.
resultsParticipants associated the Green Cross method with patient safety, but no core elements of the method were identified. Instead, the opportunity to be engaged in patient safety work in a systematic way was underlined by all study participants. Highlighted key areas were the simplicity and the systematic framework of the method along with a need of distinct leadership. The daily meetings promoted trust and dialogue and developed the patient safety mindset. Daily meetings, together with the visualisation of the cross, were emphasised as important by users who otherwise had limited knowledge of the entire method.
conclusionThis study offers valuable information that can help deepen the understanding of how the method specifically supports patient safety work. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Healthcare workers are expected to report patient safety issues. This study presents user-friendly aspects of the method as well as limitations, relevant for present and future users.
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.