Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39929715›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2026

Investigators are human too: outcome bias and perceptions of individual culpability in patient safety incident investigations.

William Lea, Luke Budworth, Jane O'Hara, Charles Vincent, Rebecca Lawton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

William LeaUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK william.p.lea@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-445X
Luke BudworthUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Jane O'HaraTHIS Institute, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Charles VincentDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0270-0222
Rebecca LawtonBradford Institute for Health Research Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group, Bradford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5832-402X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare patient safety investigations inappropriately focus on individual culpability and the target of recommendations is often on the behaviours of individuals, rather than addressing latent failures of the system. The aim of this study was to explore whether outcome bias might provide some explanation for this. Outcome bias occurs when the ultimate outcome of a past event is given excessive weight, in comparison to other information, when judging the preceding actions or decisions.

methodsWe conducted a survey in which participants were each presented with three incident scenarios, followed by the findings of an investigation. The scenarios remained the same, but the patient outcome was manipulated. Participants were recruited via social media and we examined three groups (general public, healthcare staff and experts) and those with previous incident involvement. Participants were asked about staff responsibility, avoidability, importance of investigating and to select up to five recommendations to prevent recurrence. Summary statistics and multilevel modelling were used to examine the association between patient outcome and the above measures.

results212 participants completed the online survey. Worsening patient outcome was associated with increased judgements of staff responsibility for causing the incident as well as greater motivation to investigate. More participants selected punitive recommendations when patient outcome was worse. While avoidability did not appear to be associated with patient outcome, ratings were high suggesting participants always considered incidents to be highly avoidable. Those with patient safety expertise demonstrated these associations but to a lesser extent, when compared with other participants. We discuss important comparisons between the participant groups as well as those with previous incident involvement, as victim or staff member.

interpretationOutcome bias has a significant impact on judgements following incidents and investigations and may contribute to the continued focus on individual culpability and individual focused recommendations observed following investigations.

Indexed as

Medical ErrorsPatient SafetyAdultBiasFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCognitive biasesHealth policyPatient Safety

Identifiers

PMID39929715
PMCPMC13018802

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.