Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36612434›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Patient Safety and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: A Repeated Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

Olga Amberger, Angelina Müller, Dorothea Lemke, Hardy Müller, David Schwappach, Peter Wendt, Michel Wensing, Maria-Sophie Brueckle, Beate S Müller

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Patient safety-development and evaluation].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Olga AmbergerInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2207-6036
Angelina MüllerInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0162-7000
Dorothea LemkeInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Hardy MüllerTechniker Krankenkasse, TK, Unternehmenszentrale, 22305 Hamburg, Germany.
David SchwappachInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8668-3065
Peter WendtTechniker Krankenkasse, TK, Unternehmenszentrale, 22305 Hamburg, Germany.
Michel WensingDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6569-8137
Maria-Sophie BrueckleInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Beate S MüllerInstitute of General Practice, University of Cologne, 50937 Köln, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DETechniker Krankenkasse (Germany) · DEHeidelberg University · DEInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CHUniversity of Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has presented Germany with major challenges and has led to concerns about patient safety. We conducted an observational, population-based, nationwide, repeated cross-sectional survey on patient safety in Germany in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Each of the three samples consisted of 1000 randomly recruited adults. Self-reported data via computer-assisted telephone interviews were taken from TK Monitor of Patient Safety. Perceptions, experience, and knowledge relating to patient safety were assessed. The majority of respondents considered medical treatment to involve risks to patient safety. This proportion decreased during the pandemic. The majority also had a high degree of self-efficacy regarding the prevention of medical errors, whereby the percentage that felt well informed with regard to patient safety rose throughout the pandemic. The proportion of persons that suspected they had in the past experienced an error in their treatment remained steady at one third as well as the reported errors. In 2020, 65% of respondents thought health communication with service providers (e.g., extent and comprehensibility of information) remained unchanged during the pandemic, while 35% reported that medical appointments had been cancelled or postponed. This study is the first to assess patient safety from a general population perspective during the coronavirus pandemic in Germany. COVID-19 had a positive impact on perceived patient safety but no impact on suspected and reported errors. Self-efficacy with regard to medical error prevention steadily increased in the general population, and people considered themselves well informed.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHumansPandemicsPatient SafetySARS-CoV-2coronavirus pandemicpatient safetyPROM

Identifiers

PMID36612434
PMCPMC9819909
OpenAlexW4312098658

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.