ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2022
Epistemic Injustice in Incident Investigations: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting Patient Safety Through Patient Engagement at the Organisational Level: A Delphi-Based Needs Assessment Among Patient and Family Advisory Councils.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Trial
- Next of kin's experiences of healthcare encounters in the context of severe self-harm: "We know them best".International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Reorienting the Way a Community Mental Health Service Responds to Suicide and Other Serious Incidents.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Integrating equity into incident reporting and patient concerns systems: a critical interpretive synthesis.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Review
- Closing investigations: The role of national policy in shaping structural, organisational and relational constraints on learning from patient safety incidents.Safety science · 2025Article
- Integrating equity into hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems: study protocol for a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Hospital managers' experiences of conducting a root cause analysis: a case study following a sentinel event.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Involving Service Users in Care Regulation: A Scoping Review of Empirical Literature.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Involvement in serious incident investigations: a qualitative documentary analysis of NHS trust policies in England.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- External inspection approaches and involvement of stakeholders' views in inspection following serious incidents - a qualitative mixed methods study from the perspectives of regulatory inspectors.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- The value of experts by experience in social domain supervision in the Netherlands: results from a 'mystery guests' project.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Humanizing processes after harm part 1: patient safety incident investigations, litigation and the experiences of those affected.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Humanising processes after harm part 2: compounded harm experienced by patients and their families after safety incidents.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Toward a Values-Informed Approach to Complexity in Health Care: Hermeneutic Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2023Review
- Role of the regulator in enabling a just culture: a qualitative study in mental health and hospital care.BMJ open · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serious incident investigations-often conducted by means of Root Cause Analysis methodologies-are increasingly seen as platforms to learn from multiple perspectives and experiences: professionals, patients and their families alike. Underlying this principle of inclusiveness is the idea that healthcare staff and service users hold unique and valuable knowledge that can inform learning, as well as the notion that learning is a social process that involves people actively reflecting on shared knowledge. Despite initiatives to facilitate inclusiveness, research shows that embracing and learning from diverse perspectives is difficult. Using the concept of 'epistemic injustice', pointing at practices of someone's knowledge being unjustly disqualified or devalued, we analyze the way incident investigations are organized and executed with the aim to understand why it is difficult to embrace and learn from the multiple perspectives voiced in incident investigations. We draw from 73 semi-structured interviews with healthcare leaders, managers, healthcare professionals, incident investigators and inspectors, document analyses and ethnographic observations. Our analysis identified several structures in the incident investigation process, that can promote or hinder an actor's epistemic contribution in the process of incident investigations. Rather than repeat calls to 'involve more' and 'listen better', we encourage policy makers to be mindful of and address the structures that can cause epistemic injustice. This can improve the outcome of incident investigations and can help to do justice to the lived experiences of the involved actors in the aftermath of a serious incident.
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.