ArticleBMJ open2021
Qualitative exploration of the Medical Examiner role in identifying problems with the quality of patient care.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feedback from bereaved relatives via Medical Examiners: what kinds of concerns are raised?BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Is anybody 'Learning' from deaths? Sequential content and reflexive thematic analysis of national statutory reporting within the NHS in England 2017-2020.BMJ open quality · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA national system of Medical Examiners (MEs) implemented in England and Wales from April 2019 was intended to ensure that every death receives scrutiny from an independent, senior doctor, resulting in early detection of problems in care. The aim of this study was to increase understanding of how the ME role operates to identify problems related to quality of patient care and to explore the potential for development to maximise learning opportunities.
designA qualitative approach involved the use of semi-structured interviews. Data analysis employed a framework approach.
settingStudy participants were recruited from 11 acute hospitals in England, known to be operating an ME service.
participantsA purposive sample of 20 MEs and one ME officer.
resultsMEs brought different perspectives to the role based on their medical background. The process for identifying and acting on quality of care concerns was broadly consistent, with a notable consensus regarding the value of speaking to bereaved relatives. Variation was identified within and between services in relation to how core components are carried out and the perceived salience of information, which appeared to reflect individual and service preferences as well as different organisational pathways. ME services required flexibility to accommodate fluctuating demand, but funding arrangements imposed restrictions. The majority of MEs highlighted limited opportunity for formal team contact and a lack of meaningful feedback as limiting scope for development.
conclusionCore components of the ME role were being conducted, although individual and systemic variations in practice were identified. The discussion with bereaved relatives is a unique feature of the ME role and was considered highly valuable, both for the organisation and relatives. Further development could consider the impact of the variation identified and address mechanisms for feedback and shared learning.
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.