ArticleBMJ open2022
Key factors for effective implementation of healthcare worker support interventions after patient safety incidents in health organisations: a protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth organisations should support healthcare workers who are physically and psychologically affected by patient safety incidents (second victims). There is a growing body of evidence which focuses on second victim support interventions. However, there is still limited research on the elements necessary to effectively implement and ensure the sustainability of these types of interventions. In this study, we propose to map and frame the key factors which underlie an effective implementation of healthcare worker support interventions in healthcare organisations when healthcare workers are physically and/or emotionally affected by patient safety incidents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be guided by the established methodological Arksey and O'Malley framework, Levac and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations. We will follow the JBI three-step process: (1) a preliminary search conducted on two databases; (2) the definition of clear inclusion criteria and the creation of a list of search terms to be used in the subsequent running of the search on a larger number of databases; and (3) additional searches (cross-checking/cross-referencing of reference lists of eligible studies, hand-searching in target journals relevant to the topic, conference proceedings, institutional/organisational websites and networks repositories). We will undertake a comprehensive search strategy in relevant bibliographic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycInfo, Epistemonikos, Scielo, Cochrane Library and Open Grey). We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool V.2018 for quality assessment of the eligible studies. Our scoping review will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not require ethical approval. Results of the scoping review will be published in a peer-review journal, and findings will be presented in scientific conferences as well as in international forums and other relevant dissemination channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RQAT6.Preprint from medRxiv available: doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.25.22269846.
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.