Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35437258›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2022

Indicators for implementation outcome monitoring of reporting and learning systems in hospitals: an underestimated need for patient safety.

Silke Kuske, Tabea Willmeroth, Jörg Schneider, Sandra Belibasakis, Martina Roes, Sandra Olivia Borgmann, Maria Ines Cartes Febrero

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. [Recommendations for a Core Curriculum for Master's Degree Programs in Health Services Research].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Silke KuskeFliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany kuske@fliedner-fachhochschule.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2221-4531
Tabea WillmerothFliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Jörg SchneiderFliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Sandra BelibasakisFliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Martina RoesGerman Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4531-8584
Sandra Olivia BorgmannFliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5843-0730
Maria Ines Cartes FebreroMedizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Fliedner Fachhochschule Düsseldorf · DEGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to investigate the perception of the implementation success of reporting and learning systems in German hospitals, the perceived relevance of the implementation outcomes and whether and how these implementation outcomes are monitored. An reporting and learning system is a tool used worldwide for patient safety that identifies and analyses critical events, errors, risks and near misses in healthcare.

methodsA pretested exploratory cross-sectional online survey was conducted with reporting and learning system experts from 51 acute care hospitals. For communicative validation, the results were discussed in person in an expert panel discussion (N=23).

resultsFifty-three per cent (n=27) of the participants (N=51) of the online survey perceived that their reporting and learning system was being comprehensively and successfully implemented. However, no service or patient outcomes were reported to ultimately capture the concept of implementation success. Most of the participants reported a (high) relevance of the implementation outcomes' acceptability and sustainability. In total, 44 measures were provided to monitor implementation outcomes. However, most of the quantitative measures were based on the (relative) number of entered reports. Qualitative measures were reported in relation to the 'quality of the report'. In general, the measures were poorly specified.

conclusionThere is an underestimated need to develop validated 'implementation patient safety indicator(s) (sets)' to monitor implementation outcomes of reporting and learning systems. We also identified a potential need to facilitate awareness of the concept of implementation success and its relevance for patient safety. Drafts of indicators that could be used as a starting point for the further development of 'implementation patient safety indicators' were provided.

Indexed as

HospitalsPatient SafetyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLearningSurveys and Questionnairesimplementation scienceincident reportingoutcome assessmentpatient safetyrisk management

Identifiers

PMID35437258
PMCPMC9016397
OpenAlexW4224048075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.