Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38155372›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2024

Risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct against health practitioners: a scoping review.

Yufeng Wang, Sanyogita Sanya Ram, Shane Scahill

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Bile Duct Injury and Litigation in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Global Review of Current and Future Preventative Initiatives.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Yufeng WangSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.ORCID 0009-0006-8850-6912
Sanyogita Sanya RamSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-5774-1972
Shane ScahillSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5350-696X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying the risk and predicting complaints and misconduct against health practitioners are essential for healthcare regulators to implement early interventions and develop long-term prevention strategies to improve professional practice and enhance patient safety. This scoping review aims to map out existing literature on the risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct against health practitioners. This scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and finished on the same day (6 September 2021). Articles meeting the eligibility criteria were charted and descriptively analysed through a narrative analysis method. The initial search generated 5473 articles. After the identification, screening, and inclusion process, 81 eligible studies were included for data charting. Three key themes were reported: methods used for identifying risk factors and predictors of the complaints and misconduct, synthesis of identified risk factors and predictors in eligible studies, and predictive tools developed for complaints and misconduct against health practitioners. The findings reveal that risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct are complex issues influenced by multiple factors, exhibiting non-linear patterns and being context specific. Further efforts are needed to understand the characteristics and interactions of risk factors, develop systematic risk prediction tools, and facilitate the application in the regulatory environment.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePatient SafetyHumansRisk Factorscomplaintshealth practitionersmisconductrisk identificationrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID38155372
PMCPMC10791111

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.