GuidelineInternal and emergency medicine2025
Development of an Emergency Department Safety Checklist through a global consensus process.
Guideline in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triage Nurses' Perceptions of Patient Safety Errors During Triage in the Emergency Department: Qualitative Thematic Analysis Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Operationalising adult eating disorders admission criteria in Australian emergency departments: a clinical decision-support approach.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- National survey on availability, use and clinical impact of point-of-care blood analysis systems in Swedish emergency departments.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency departments (EDs) are at high risk for medical errors. Checklist implementation programs have been associated with improved patient outcomes in other high-risk clinical settings and when used to address specific aspects of ED care. The aim of this study was to develop an ED Safety Checklist with broad applicability across different international ED settings. A three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted with a multidisciplinary and multinational panel of experts in emergency medicine and patient safety. Initial checklist items were identified through a systematic review of the literature. Each item was evaluated for inclusion in the final checklist during two rounds of web-based surveys and an online consensus meeting. Agreement for inclusion was defined a priori with a threshold of 80% combined agreement. Eighty panel members from 34 countries across all seven world regions participated in the study, with comparable representation from low- and middle-income and high-income countries. The final checklist contains 86 items divided into: (1) a general ED Safety Checklist focused on diagnostic evaluation, patient reassessment, and disposition and (2) five domain-specific ED Safety Checklists focused on handoff, invasive procedures, triage, treatment prescription, and treatment administration. The checklist includes key clinical tasks to prevent medical errors, as well as items to improve communication among ED team members and with patients and their families. This novel ED Safety Checklist defines the essential elements of high-quality ED care and has the potential to ensure their consistent implementation worldwide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.