Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40229754›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

Strategies and tools to learn from work that goes well within healthcare patient safety practices: a mixed methods systematic review.

Gørill Birkeli, Anne Karin Lindahl, Åse Marit Hammersbøen, Ellen Catharina Tveter Deilkås, Randi Ballangrud

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Gørill BirkeliDivision of Surgery, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, Lørenskog, 1478, Norway. gobi@ahus.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4212-3802
Anne Karin LindahlDivision of Surgery, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, Lørenskog, 1478, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5148-0639
Åse Marit HammersbøenDepartment of Research Support, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7275-8644
Ellen Catharina Tveter DeilkåsHealth Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6527-5636
Randi BallangrudFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0403-0509

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSafety-II is a new approach to patient safety that is characterised by learning from work that goes well, including learning from success and work-as-done. Practical tools to facilitate this learning are starting to emerge within healthcare patient safety practices. In absence of a systematic review of such learning tools, the aim of the study was to provide an overview of strategies and tools for healthcare professionals to learn from work that goes well in healthcare patient safety practices.

methodsRegistered in advance in PROSPERO, this systematic review has followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We searched eight databases in February 2023: Medline, Cinahl, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Articles describing the development, implementation or evaluation of tools were included if they were (1) quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods or white papers/commentaries (non-empirical), (2) available in English or Scandinavian language, (3) published between 2000 and February 2023, (4) developed or implemented in healthcare practices, (5) detailed in description and (6) preferably peer-reviewed. Articles were excluded if they primarily dealt with students, Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), appreciative inquiry and positive deviance. Articles were screened against eligibility criteria using Rayyan software. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the articles. The framework for resilience research was used to present and synthesise the results.

resultsOut of 5298 records screened, 126 articles were retrieved for evaluation, and 22 articles were included, describing 16 unique tools. Five tools were not empirically evaluated. Most learning tools were aimed at healthcare professionals in hospitals units (68%), and were generally welcomed by healthcare professionals. Tools intended for learning across the organisation were second most frequent (23%), followed by tools intended for learning between hospitals (9%). Most studies focused on validating the tools' ability to provide insights into work-as-done, and their effect on staff wellbeing. Few studies focused on patient outcomes.

conclusionsThe review shows a growing number of practical Safety-II tools, which may help understand and learn from the constant adaptations made by healthcare professionals every day to keep patients safe.

trial registrationPROSPERO: number CRD42022335758.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelLearningPatient SafetySafety ManagementHumansHealthcareInterventionsLearningQuality improvementReportingSafety-IISystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40229754
PMCPMC11995654

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.