Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39986680›Full record

ReviewBMJ quality & safety2025

Systems analysis of clinical incidents: development of a new edition of the London Protocol.

Charles Vincent, Dulcie Irving, Tommaso Bellandi, Helen Higham, Philippe Michel, Anthony Staines, Sally Adams, Jeff Brown, Peter Damian Hibbert, Carole Hemmelgarn and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ quality & safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Assessing the quality of patient safety incident investigation reports.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors.

Charles VincentExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK charles.vincent@psy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0270-0222
Dulcie IrvingExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6005-8648
Tommaso BellandiPatient Safety, Tuscany Northwest Trust, Regional Health Service of Tuscany, Lucca, Italy.
Helen HighamNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-0377
Philippe MichelQuality Management, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lyon, Lyon, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France.
Anthony StainesPatient Safety Programme, Fédération des hôpitaux vaudois, Clarmont, Switzerland.
Sally AdamsEast London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jeff BrownPatients for Patients Safety, Georgetown, District of Columbia, USA.
Peter Damian HibbertAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7865-343X
Carole HemmelgarnPatients for Patients Safety, Georgetown, District of Columbia, USA.
Lallu JosephChristian Medical College Vellore, Vellore, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6938-1265
Karina PiresBrazilian Institute for Patient Safety (IBSP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Susan SheridanPatients for Patient Safety US, Georgetown, District of Columbia, USA.
Rosa SunolAvedis Donabedian Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Shin UshiroDivision of Patient Safety, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.
Albert W WuCenter for Health Services and Outcomes Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6189-7120
Lucas ZambonBrazilian Institute for Patient Safety (IBSP), São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-2303-4702

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The investigation of incidents and accidents, together with subsequent reflection and action, is an essential component of safety management in every safety-critical industry, including healthcare. A number of formal methods of incident analysis were developed in the early days of risk management and patient safety, including the London Protocol which was published in 2004. In this paper, we describe the development of a new edition of the London Protocol. We explain the need for a revised and expanded version of the London Protocol, addressing both the changes in healthcare in the last two decades and what has been learnt from the experience of incident analysis across the world. We describe a systematic process of development of the new edition drawing on the findings of a narrative review of incident analysis methods. The principal changes in the new edition are as follows: increased emphasis and guidance on the engagement of patients and families as partners in the investigation; giving more attention to the support of patients, families and staff in the aftermath of an incident; emphasising the value of a small number of in-depth analyses combined with thematic reviews of wider problems; including proposals and guidance for the examination of much longer time periods; emphasising the need to highlight good care as well as problems; adding guidance on direct observation of the work environment; providing a more structured and wide-ranging approach to recommendations and including more guidance on how to write safety incident reports. Finally, we offer some proposals to place research on incident analysis on a firmer foundation and make suggestions for the practice and implementation of incident investigation within safety management systems.

Indexed as

Medical ErrorsPatient SafetyRisk ManagementSafety ManagementSystems AnalysisClinical ProtocolsHumansLondonAdverse events, epidemiology and detectionHuman factorsPatient SafetyRisk managementSignificant event analysis, critical incident review

Identifiers

PMID39986680
PMCPMC12171414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.