ArticleBMJ open quality2023
Qualitative study on experience of healthcare staff who have undergone a hybrid root cause analysis training programme.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Root Cause Analysis to Systems Thinking: A Comparative Content Analysis of Patient Safety Incident Investigation Reports in Mental Healthcare.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of prevention bundle for neonatal healthcare-associated infections: an interventional study.F1000Research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoot cause analysis (RCA) is a structured investigation methodology aimed at identifying systems factors to prevent recurrence of incidents. To enhance staff's knowledge and skills, a hybrid RCA training course was conducted in February 2021. Overseas instructors conducted training online and local participants attended the training together physically with onsite facilitator support. This study aimed at understanding the experiences of trainees who have undergone the training, evaluated its effectiveness and identified opportunities to enhance RCA training quality in the future.
methodsA qualitative study using virtual synchronous focus group interviews was conducted. Purposive sampling was adopted to invite all trainees from the RCA training course to join. A semistructured interview was used to guide the study participants to share their experiences. All groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised for data analysis.
resultsOverall, 6 focus groups with 19 participants were held between July and November 2021. Five key themes were identified including: (1) training contents, (2) perceptions of RCA, (3) challenges in RCA, (4) hybrid training and (5) future perspectives. Participants felt the RCA training was useful and broadened their understanding in incident investigation. More in-depth training in interviewing skills, report writing with practical sessions could further enhance their competencies in RCA. Participants accepted the use of hybrid online-offline training well. Most participants would welcome an independent organisation to conduct RCA as findings would be more objective and recommendations more effective.
conclusionsThis study provided an evaluation on the effectiveness of a hybrid RCA training course. Healthcare and training organisations can consider this training mode as it could reduce the cost of training and enhance flexibility in course arrangement while preserving quality and effectiveness. Virtual focus groups to interview participants were found to be convenient as it minimised travelling time and onsite arrangement while maintaining the quality of discussion.
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.