ArticlePalliative medicine2025
Feasibility of prospective error reporting in home palliative care: A mixed methods study.
Article in Palliative medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revealing the hidden harms in end-of-life care: a mixed-methods characterisation of reported safety incidents involving injectable symptom control medication.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Learning from end-of-life injectable medication patient safety incidents in the community: a mixed-methods analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProspectively tracking errors can improve patient safety but little is known about how to successfully implement error reporting in a home-based palliative care context.
aimExplore the feasibility of implementing an error reporting system in a home-based palliative care program in Toronto, Canada, and describe the possible factors that may influence uptake.
designA convergent mixed-methods approach was used. Participants prospectively documented errors using a novel reporting tool and completed monthly surveys. Following the reporting period, we conducted a semi-structured interview exploring participants' experiences and perceived factors influencing reporting behaviors. Error, survey, and interview data were analyzed separately, then integrated for comparison. SETTING AND
participantsThirteen palliative care physicians from a single home-based palliative care organization in Toronto, Canada anonymously reported errors between October 2021 and September 2022. Of these, six participated in the exit interview.
resultsParticipants reported 195 errors; one-third (
conclusionsPhysicians are amenable to error reporting activities so long as data is used to improve patient safety. The collaborative nature of care in a home-based palliative care context may present unique challenges to translating error reporting to improved patient safety.
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.