Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37225257›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2023

Green Cross method in a postanaesthesia care unit: a qualitative study of the healthcare professionals' experiences after 3 years, including the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Gørill Helen Birkeli, Randi Ballangrud, Hilde Kristin Jacobsen, Ellen Catharina Tveter Deilkas, Anne Karin Lindahl

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gørill Helen BirkeliInstitute of Health and Society, Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway gobi@ahus.no.ORCID 0000-0003-4212-3802
Randi BallangrudDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0403-0509
Hilde Kristin JacobsenInstitute of Basic Medical Sciences, Department of Behavioural Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ellen Catharina Tveter DeilkasHealth Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Lorenskog, Norway.
Anne Karin LindahlInstitute of Health and Society, Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NONorwegian Directorate of Health · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUnsafe medical care causes morbidity and mortality among the hospital patients. In a postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), increasing patient safety is a joint effort between different professions. The Green Cross (GC) method is a user-friendly incident reporting method that incorporates daily safety briefings to support healthcare professionals in their daily patient safety work. Thus, this study aimed to describe healthcare professionals' experiences with the GC method in a PACU setting 3 years after its implementation, including the period of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic's three waves.

designAn inductive, descriptive qualitative study was conducted. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

settingThe study was conducted at a PACU of a university hospital in South-Eastern Norway.

participantsFive semistructured focus group interviews were conducted in March and April 2022. The informants (n=23) were PACU nurses (n=18) and collaborative healthcare professionals (n=5) including physicians, nurses and a pharmacist.

resultsThe theme 'still active, but in need of revitalisation' was created, describing the healthcare professionals' experiences with the GC method, 3 years post implementation. The following five categories were found: 'continuing to facilitate open communication', 'expressing a desire for more interprofessional collaboration regarding improvements', 'increasing reluctance to report', 'downscaling due to the pandemic' and 'expressing a desire to share more of what went well'.

conclusionsThis study offers information regarding the healthcare professionals' experiences with the GC method in a PACU setting; further, it deepens the understanding of the daily patient safety work using this incident reporting method.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchContinuous quality improvementCOVID-19Incident reportingPatient safetySafety culture

Identifiers

PMID37225257
PMCPMC10230969
OpenAlexW4377982608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.