Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37903635›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2024

Adopting human factors in early phase and experimental medicine research: A nested pilot study observing controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Helen E Higham, Lauren Morgan, Cushla Cooper, Julia Marshall, Andrew Mawer, Susan Jackson, Raquel Lopez-Ramon, Eileen Hughes, Duncan Richards, Helen McShane and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Helen E HighamNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5796-0377
Lauren MorganNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Cushla CooperNIHR Oxford Clinical Research Facility, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julia MarshallDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew MawerDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Susan JacksonDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Raquel Lopez-RamonDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Eileen HughesDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Duncan RichardsNIHR Oxford Clinical Research Facility, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Helen McShaneDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
James N FullertonNIHR Oxford Clinical Research Facility, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4855-9255
University of Oxford · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GB

Funding

University of OxfordWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 222305/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe influence of human factors on safety in healthcare settings is well established, with targeted interventions reducing risk and enhancing team performance. In experimental and early phase clinical research participant safety is paramount and safeguarded by guidelines, protocolized care and staff training; however, the real-world interaction and implementation of these risk-mitigating measures has never been subjected to formal system-based assessment.

methodsIndependent structured observations, systematic review of study documents, and interviews and focus groups were used to collate data on three key tasks undertaken in a clinical research facility (CRF) during a SARS CoV-2 controlled human infection model (CHIM) study. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) was employed to analyse and categorize findings, and develop recommendations for safety interventions.

resultsHigh levels of team functioning and a clear focus on participant safety were evident throughout the study. Despite this, latent risks in both study-specific and CRF work systems were identified in all four SEIPS domains (people, environment, tasks and tools). Fourteen actionable recommendations were generated collaboratively. These included inter-organization and inter-study standardization, optimized checklists for safety critical tasks, and use of simulation for team training and exploration of work systems.

conclusionsThis pioneering application of human factors techniques to analyse work systems during the conduct of research in a CRF revealed risks unidentified by routine review and appraisal, and despite international guideline adherence. SEIPS may aid categorization of system problems and the formulation of recommendations that reduce risk and mitigate potential harm applicable across a trials portfolio.

Indexed as

COVID-19Patient SafetySARS-CoV-2Biomedical ResearchFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansPilot Projectsclinical trialshuman factorsmethodologypatient safetytranslational research

Identifiers

PMID37903635
PMCPMC11497241
OpenAlexW4388034146

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.