ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Synesis as a framework to enable safety interventions in complex healthcare environments.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite wide adoption in the healthcare of safety event report (SER) systems, there is a paucity of unified structures for prompt analysis and action while retaining reporter confidentiality. We used a synesis framework to change siloed reviews of safety reports to a comprehensive appraisal of quality, safety, productivity and reliability to facilitate interventions.
methodsAfter a needs assessment survey, we launched serial plan-do-study-act cycles to (1) enhance teams' ability to access SERs, (2) facilitate regular multidisciplinary review of SERs to identify actionable opportunities, (3) allocate action priority using failure mode and effects analysis, and (4) launch actions and summarise data. Team of Teams model allowed for empowered execution. Measures included process-completion of review, team engagement, proportion of 'open' (those without action plan) reports within 1 month of filing; outcome-number of actions launched and completed, dissemination of actions and postintervention survey results; and balancing-resources invested.
results26 multidisciplinary leaders reviewed 3175 of the 3406 total reported SERs across four clinical units over 18 months. The proportion of reviewed to total SERs increased significantly from the first 6 months (75%) to the second 12 months (99%) (p<0.001), and the proportion of 'open' to reviewed SERs decreased significantly from 43% to 5.3% (p<0.001). Many local- and organisational-level actions were launched efficiently by the engaged and aligned team. Action impact was assessed by reviewing trends in SER themes and findings, and actions and impact were disseminated at unit, divisional and organisational levels. Postintervention survey showed improvement in leaders' perceptions about SER reviews. SUMMARY: We successfully implemented a sustainable process to comprehensively review, prioritise and act on SERs in our large institution and facilitated safety interventions using a synesis framework.
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.