Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39608995›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

What are the unintended patient safety consequences of healthcare technologies? A qualitative study among patients, carers and healthcare providers.

Shahd Abdelaziz, Sara Garfield, Ana Luisa Neves, Jill Lloyd, John Norton, Jackie van Dael, Carly Wheeler, Monsey McLeod, Bryony Dean Franklin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Population health management fit lifecycles in analytics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Shahd AbdelazizPharmacy, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK s.abdelaziz@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6090-0754
Sara GarfieldUCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.
Ana Luisa NevesDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7107-7211
Jill LloydCentre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
John NortonPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College, London, UK.
Jackie van DaelNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Carly WheelerNHS England, London, UK.
Monsey McLeodNHS England, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5571-2417
Bryony Dean FranklinUCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2892-1245

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify patient-safety-related unintended consequences of healthcare technologies experienced by their primary users: patients, carers and healthcare providers (HCPs).

designQualitative study based on data collected in online focus groups. Transcripts were analysed inductively after each focus group using reflexive thematic analysis, focusing on identifying unintended consequences of healthcare technologies with implications for patient safety. Patient safety was broadly conceptualised to include a more subjective concept of 'feeling safe' as well as risks of actual harm.

settingPatient/public and HCP participants from the UK with experience in healthcare technologies were recruited using a mixture of purposive, convenience and snowball sampling.

participants40 participants (29 patients/public, 11 HCPs) took part in 5 focus groups between November 2021 and February 2022.

resultsWe identified five main themes of unintended consequences with implications for patient safety: inequity of access, increased end-user burden, loss of the human element of healthcare, over-reliance on technology and unclear responsibilities. Both groups of participants identified unintended consequences directly affecting patients; HCPs also described those affecting themselves. Some unintended consequences are described in previous literature, including alert fatigue, the 'illusion of communication', reduced opportunities for face-to-face interactions and increased end-user burden. Others are potentially novel, including patients' psychological dependence on technologies, 'gaming' of data entry and incorrect interpretation of health data.

conclusionsDrawing on the perspectives of patients/public as well as HCPs, we identified five areas of patient-safety-related unintended consequences associated with healthcare technologies. These should be considered when developing tools to identify and mitigate the patient-safety-related unintended consequences of healthcare technologies.

Indexed as

CaregiversFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelPatient SafetyQualitative ResearchAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelBiomedical TechnologyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatientsUnited KingdomYoung AdulteHealthHealth informaticsInformation technologyQUALITATIVE RESEARCHTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39608995
PMCPMC11603710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.