Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256742›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Patient perspectives on adverse event investigations in health care.

Rachel I Dijkstra-Eijkemans, Linda J Knap, Nieke A Elbers, Roland D Friele, Antony Pemberton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. What Do Consumers Need Before, During and After a Patient Safety Incident Review? A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    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.

Rachel I Dijkstra-EijkemansTilburg Law School, Tilburg University, PO Box 90151, Tilburg, 5000 LE, the Netherlands. r.i.dijkstra@uu.nl.
Linda J KnapNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), PO Box 1568, Utrecht, 3500 BN, the Netherlands.
Nieke A ElbersNetherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, PO Box 71304, Amsterdam, 1008 BH, the Netherlands.
Roland D FrieleNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), PO Box 1568, Utrecht, 3500 BN, the Netherlands.
Antony PembertonNetherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, PO Box 71304, Amsterdam, 1008 BH, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decade attention has grown to give patients and next of kin (P/N) more substantial roles in adverse event investigations. Adverse event investigations occur after adverse events that resulted in death or severe injury. Few studies have focused on patient perspectives on their involvement in such investigations. The present study sets out to investigate how P/N and patient representatives (client councils and the Patient Federation Netherlands) view the involvement of P/N in adverse event investigations, particularly whether and why they want to involved, and how they want to shape their involvement.

methodsThe study features qualitative data on three levels: interviews with P/N (personal), focus groups with representatives of client councils (institutional), and an interview with the Patient Federation Netherlands (national). Researchers used inductive, thematic analysis and validated the results through data source triangulation.

resultsThe initiative taken by the hospitals in this study provided P/N with the space to feel heard and a position as legitimate stakeholder. P/N appreciated the opportunity to choose whether and how they wanted to be involved in the investigation as stakeholders. P/N emphasized the need for hospitals to learn from the investigations, but for them the investigation was also part of a more encompassing relationship. P/N's views showed the inextricable link between the first conversation with the health care professional and the investigation, and the ongoing care after the investigation was finalized. Hence, an adverse event investigation is part of a broader experience when understood from a patient perspective.

conclusionsAn adverse event investigation should be considered as part of an existing relationship between P/N and hospital that starts before the investigation and continues during follow up care. It is crucial for hospitals to take the initiative in the investigation and in the involvement of P/N. P/N motivations for involvement can be understood as driven by agency or communion. Agentic motivations include being an active participant by choice, while communion motivations include the need to be heard.

Indexed as

Focus GroupsMedical ErrorsQualitative ResearchFamilyFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient ParticipationPatient SafetyAdverse event investigationAgency and communionLearningPatient involvementPatients and next of kin

Identifiers

PMID39256742
PMCPMC11385834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.