Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973796›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence.

Mary Adams, Julie Hartley, Natalie Sanford, Alexander Edward Heazell, Rick Iedema, Charlotte Bevan, Maria Booker, Maureen Treadwell, Jane Sandall

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. 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
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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 1 country.

Mary AdamsDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. Mary.Adams@kcl.ac.uk.
Julie HartleyDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Natalie SanfordThe Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery, and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Alexander Edward HeazellSchool of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rick IedemaSchool of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Charlotte BevanThe Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity (SANDS), London, UK.
Maria BookerBirthRights, London, UK.
Maureen TreadwellThe Birth Trauma Association, London, UK.
Jane SandallDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
King's College London · GBHarris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine · GBSands · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme HS&DR17/99/85
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpen Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts.

methodsRealist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified.

resultsAfter realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated.

conclusionsThis is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.

Indexed as

DisclosureMaternal Health ServicesCommunicationDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansPregnancyState MedicineAdverse eventsFamily involvementHealthcare safetyIncident reviewsMaternity safetyMedical errorOpen disclosurePatient-centred careRealist evaluationRealist literature synthesis

Identifiers

PMID36973796
PMCPMC10041808
OpenAlexW4361304476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read44
measurements read17
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.