Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206386›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2025

The Learn Together programme (part A): co-designing an approach to support patient and family involvement and engagement in patient safety incident investigations.

Jane K O'Hara, Lauren Ramsey, Rebecca Partridge, Chris Redford, Siobhan McHugh, Gemma Louch, Penny Phillips, Laura Sheard, Ruth Simms-Ellis, Justin Waring and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Jane K O'HaraThe Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Lauren RamseyYorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Rebecca PartridgeLab4Living, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Chris RedfordNifty Fox Creative, Barnsley, United Kingdom.
Siobhan McHughSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Gemma LouchSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Penny PhillipsPatient and Family Advisory Group Member - Learn Together programme, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Laura SheardYork Trials Unit, University of York, United Kingdom.
Ruth Simms-EllisYorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Justin WaringSchool of Social Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Joe LangleyLab4Living, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Whilst patients and families can and do support patient safety in several ways, empirical evidence for the specific impact of involvement in patient safety incident investigations and their outcomes, has been limited, with little information about how to undertake involvement meaningfully. Aim: We aimed to (i) develop a set of common principles to guide involvement of patients and families in patient safety incident investigations; (ii) develop a working programme theory for how these might be enacted; (iii) co-design guidance to support the meaningful involvement of patients and families in patient safety incident investigations. Methods: We synthesised three existing data sets (a literature review, a documentary analysis of incident investigation policies and 42 interviews with patients, families, lawyers, incident investigators, and healthcare staff) relating to patient and family involvement in incident investigations. Ten common principles and a working programme theory were drafted. Within a convened co-design community, we then developed guidance for patients, families, staff, and investigators in local NHS Trust and national investigations, via a series of workshops. Findings: We developed ten 'common principles" and a working programme theory for an approach that might support meaningful patient and family involvement in incidents investigations. Based on these principles and the programme theory, we co-designed guidance to be used within NHS Trust and national investigations of harm that follow patient safety incidents. The guidance includes information, resources and tools to enable better understanding and practice, from the perspective of patients, families, investigators and staff, on how to be meaningfully involved. Conclusions: Our ten common principles and co-designed guidance emphasise two key things. First, that organizational learning is not the only desired outcome for incident investigations, with patients, families and staff reporting the need for restoration and repair. Second, that investigations can be part of reparation, but when it fails to address the needs of stakeholders arising from investigations, it can compound the harm of the original incident. As a result, we juxtapose existing theories, and illuminate new insights, proposing a theory of "restorative learning". We see design as an ongoing phenomenon-the guidance is our current iteration, and we learnt several valuable lessons about doing co-design.

Indexed as

healthcare harmhealthcare litigationpatient involvementpatient safetyqualitative researchsafety investigations

Identifiers

PMID40206386
PMCPMC11979208

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.