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.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classifying Unsafe Health and Care Behaviors in the Context of Just Culture: A Comparative Video-Based Vignette Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Rethinking learning from incidents in healthcare: a Safety-II model integrating work-as-imagined, work-as-done, and work-as-experienced.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Burnout and patient safety: navigating between exaggerated evidence and warranted assertability.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.