Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212131›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Evaluation of a new patient safety educational programme to reduce adverse events by encouraging staff to speak up: application of the trigger tool methodology.

Kaoru Nakatani, Etsuko Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Naohiro Hagawa, Atsushi Tokuwame, Shoichi Ehara, Tetsuro Nishimura, Yasumitsu Mizobata

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 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
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaoru NakataniMedical Quality and Safety Science, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4612-2399
Etsuko Nakagami-YamaguchiMedical Quality and Safety Science, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan nyamaguchi.e@omu.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0001-6718-4658
Naohiro HagawaTraumatology and Critical Care Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Atsushi TokuwameMedical Quality and Safety Science, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Shoichi EharaIntensive Care Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Tetsuro NishimuraTraumatology and Critical Care Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Yasumitsu MizobataTraumatology and Critical Care Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Osaka Metropolitan University · JPOsaka City University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor communication contributes to adverse events (AEs). In our hospital, following an experience of a fatal incident in 2014, we developed an educational programme aimed at improving communication for better teamwork that led to a reduction in AEs.

methodsWe developed and implemented an intervention bundle comprising external investigation committee reviews, the establishment of a working group (WG), standards and emergency response guidelines, as well as educational programmes and tools. To determine the effectiveness of the educational programmes, we measured communication abilities among doctors and nurses by administering psychological scales focused on their confidence in speaking up. Furthermore, we applied the trigger tool methodology in a retrospective study to determine if our interventions had reduced AEs.

resultsThe nurses' scores for 'perceived barriers to speaking up' and 'negative attitude toward voicing opinions in the healthcare team' decreased significantly after the training from 3.20 to 3.00 and from 2.47 to 2.29 points, respectively. The junior doctors' scores for the same items also decreased significantly after the training from 3.34 to 2.51 and from 2.42 to 2.11 points, respectively. The number of AEs was 32.1 (median) before the WG, 39.9 (median) before the general training, 22.2 (median) after the general training and 18.4 (median) after implementing the leadership educational programmes. During the intervention period the hospital's incident reports per employee kept increasing.

conclusionOur new educational programmes improved junior doctors and nurses' perceptions of speaking up. We speculated that our intervention may have improved staff communication, which in turn may have led to a reduction in AEs and a sustained increase in incident reports per employee.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyPhysiciansHumansLeadershipMedical Staff, HospitalRetrospective StudiesCommunicationQuality improvementSafety cultureTeam trainingTrigger tools

Identifiers

PMID38212131
PMCPMC10806700
OpenAlexW4390765798

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.