Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35322513›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Humanizing harm: Using a restorative approach to heal and learn from adverse events.

Jo Wailling, Allison Kooijman, Joanne Hughes, Jane K O'Hara

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Humanising Government Inquiry: A Realist Examination of a Restorative Approach to Surgical Mesh Harm in Aotearoa New Zealand.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Powerless or Powerful? Healthcare Professionals' Construction of Agency in Patient and Family Engagement Accounts.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. The Cycle of Equitable Codesign' Using Restorative Practice Principles to Address Epistemic Injustice and Advance Codesign in Mental Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Using an evidence-informed co-design approach to develop a mechanism to measure experiences of the open disclosure process: an Irish case study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. What Do Consumers Need Before, During and After a Patient Safety Incident Review? A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jo WaillingSchool of Government, Te Ngāpara Centre for Restorative Practice, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-4430-2866
Allison KooijmanSchool of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Joanne HughesFounder, Harmed Patients Alliance, UK.
Jane K O'HaraSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
The Patients Association · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Leeds · GBVictoria University of Wellington · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare is not without risk. Despite two decades of policy focus and improvement efforts, the global incidence of harm remains stubbornly persistent, with estimates suggesting that 10% of hospital patients are affected by adverse events.

methodsWe explore how current investigative responses can compound the harm for all those affected-patients, families, health professionals and organizations-by neglecting to appreciate and respond to the human impacts. We suggest that the risk of compounded harm may be reduced when investigations respond to the need for healing alongside system learning, with the former having been consistently neglected. DISCUSSION: We argue that incident responses must be conceived within a relational as well as a regulatory framework, and that this-a restorative approach-has the potential to radically shift the focus, conduct and outcomes of investigative processes.

conclusionThe identification of the preconditions and mechanisms that enable the success of restorative approaches in global health systems and legal contexts is required if their demonstrated potential is to be realized on a larger scale. The policy must be co-created by all those who will be affected by reforms and be guided by restorative principles. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This viewpoint represents an international collaboration between a clinician academic, safety scientist and harmed patient and family members. The paper incorporates key findings and definitions from New Zealand's restorative response to surgical mesh harm, which was co-designed with patient advocates, academics and clinicians.

Indexed as

FamilyPhysiciansHealth PersonnelHumansInpatientsPatient Safetyadverse eventsincidentsinvestigationspatient safetyrestorative

Identifiers

PMID35322513
PMCPMC9327844
OpenAlexW4221111944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.