Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39261858›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

What does 'safe care' mean in the context of community-based mental health services? A qualitative exploration of the perspectives of service users, carers, and healthcare providers in England.

Phoebe Averill, Bryher Bowness, Claire Henderson, Nick Sevdalis

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Institutional Abuse, Neglect and Harm in UK Community Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review of the Peer-Reviewed Evidence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Phoebe AverillCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. phoebe.averill@kcl.ac.uk.
Bryher BownessCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Claire Henderson *Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Nick Sevdalis *Centre for Behavioural and Implementation Science Interventions, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

THIS Institute, University of Cambridge PHD-2018-01-026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaving traditionally received limited attention in empirical research and safety improvement agendas, issues of patient safety in mental healthcare increasingly feature in healthcare quality improvement discourses. Dominant approaches to safety stem from narrow clinical risk management perspectives, yet existing evidence points to the limitations of this characterisation. Although mental healthcare is increasingly delivered in community-based settings, narratives of safety pertain primarily to hospital-based mental healthcare. Therefore, through exploratory qualitative interviews and one focus group, we aimed to examine how service users, carers, and healthcare providers conceptualise 'patient safety' in community-based mental healthcare.

methodsSemi-structured interviews and a single focus group were conducted with users of UK community-based mental healthcare provision for adults (n = 13), their carers (n = 12), and providers (n = 18), who were diverse in characteristics and experiences. Study data were analysed in accordance with a reflexive approach to thematic analysis.

findingsFour key themes were developed, reflecting contrasting conceptualisations of safety in this care context, where participant thinking evolved throughout discussions. 'Systemic inertia: threats to safety' characterises the entrenched, systemic challenges which rendered participants powerless to advocate for or deliver safe care. 'Managing the risks service users present' equates 'safe care' to the mitigation of risks service users may pose to themselves or others when unwell, or risks from those around them. 'More than responding to risks: everyone plays a role in creating safety' recognises providers' agency in causing or proactively preventing patient harm. Finally, 'The goals of 'safety': our destination is not yet in sight' positions safety as a work in progress, calling for ambitious safety agendas, giving primacy to goals which meaningfully improve service users' lives.

conclusionsOur findings have implications for the understanding and improvement of patient safety in community-based mental healthcare settings, where improvement objectives should transcend beyond management of risks and preventing deterioration to address patient and carer-centred concerns, including practices that make people feel unsafe.

Indexed as

CaregiversCommunity Mental Health ServicesFocus GroupsInterviews as TopicPatient SafetyQualitative ResearchAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelEnglandFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedHealth services researchMental health servicesPatient safetyQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID39261858
PMCPMC11391812

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.