ArticleFrontiers in health services2024
Humanizing processes after harm part 1: patient safety incident investigations, litigation and the experiences of those affected.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Humanising Government Inquiry: A Realist Examination of a Restorative Approach to Surgical Mesh Harm in Aotearoa New Zealand.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Reorienting the Way a Community Mental Health Service Responds to Suicide and Other Serious Incidents.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- The impact of patient death and suicide on mental health professionals: mixed-methods study.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Do patient safety incident investigations align with systems thinking? An analysis of contributing factors and recommendations.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- What Do Consumers Need Before, During and After a Patient Safety Incident Review? A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Suicide Investigations in Adult Community Mental Health Services: Mitigation of the Fear of Blame as a Barrier to Organisational Learning.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- A closer look at the role of apology in error disclosure: a simulation study.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Decades of failure to prevent harm to patients-where are we going wrong? A mixed methods study of the perspectives of health services staff across Australia and internationally.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Understanding the factors that shape patient choices in bringing a claim for clinical negligence against the NHS in England: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2025Review
- Restorative initiatives: emerging insights from design, implementation and collaboration in five countries.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- The Learn Together programme (part A): co-designing an approach to support patient and family involvement and engagement in patient safety incident investigations.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- The Learn Together programme (part B): evaluating co-designed guidance to support patient and family involvement in patient safety incident investigations.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Humanising processes after harm part 2: compounded harm experienced by patients and their families after safety incidents.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a growing international policy focus on involving those affected by healthcare safety incidents, in subsequent investigations. Nonetheless, there remains little UK-based evidence exploring how this relates to the experiences of those affected over time, including the factors influencing decisions to litigate. Aims: We aimed to explore the experiences of patients, families, staff and legal representatives affected by safety incidents over time, and the factors influencing decisions to litigate. Methods: Participants were purposively recruited via (i) communication from four NHS hospital Trusts or an independent national investigator in England, (ii) relevant charitable organizations, (iii) social media, and (iv) word of mouth to take part in a qualitative semi-structured interview study. Data were analyzed using an inductive reflexive thematic approach. Findings: 42 people with personal or professional experience of safety incident investigations participated, comprising patients and families ( Conclusions: Incident investigations fail to acknowledge and address emotional distress experienced by all affected, resulting in compounded harm. To address this, we propose five key recommendations, to: (1) prioritize the needs of those affected by incidents, (2) overcome culturally engrained fears of litigation to re-humanize processes and reduce rates of unnecessary litigation, (3) recognize and value the emotionally laborious and skilled work of investigators (4) inform and support those affected, (5) proceed in ways that recognize and seek to reduce social inequities.
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.