ArticleBMJ open2022
Investigation of the critical factors required to improve the disclosure and discussion of harm with affected women and families: a study protocol for a qualitative, realist study in NHS maternity services (the DISCERN study).
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence.BMC health services 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients and families are entitled to an open disclosure and discussion of healthcare incidents affecting them. This reduces distress and contributes to learning for safety improvement. Complex barriers prevent effective disclosure and continue in the English NHS, despite a legal duty of candour. NHS maternity services are the focus of significant efforts to improve this. There is limited understanding of how, and to what effect, they are achieving this. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 27-month, three-phased realist evaluation identifying the critical factors contributing to improvements in the disclosure and discussion of incidents with affected families. The evaluation asks 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, in why respects and why?'.Phase 1: establish working hypotheses of key factors and outcomes of interventions improving disclosure and discussion, by realist literature review and in-depth realist interviews with key stakeholders (n=approximately 20]Phase 2: refine or overturn hypotheses, by ethnographic case-study analysis using triangulated qualitative methods (non-participant observation, interviews (n=12) and documentary analysis) in up to 4 purposively sampled NHS trusts.Phase 3: consider hypotheses and design outputs during seven interpretive forums. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Phase 1 study approval by King's College London's Ethics Panel (BDMRESC 22033) and National Research Ethical Approval for Phases 2-3 (IRASID:262197) (CAG:20/CAG/0121) (REC:20/LO/1152). Study sponsorship by King's College London (HS&DR 17/99/85).Findings to be disseminated through tailored management briefings; clinician and family guidance (written and video); lay summaries, academic papers, and report with outputs tailored to maximise academic and societal impact. Views of women/family groups are represented throughout.
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.