Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40273220›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

Psychological safety and patient safety: A systematic and narrative review.

Anthony Montgomery, Vilma Chalili, Olga Lainidi, Christos Mouratidis, Ilias Maliousis, Konstantina Paitaridou, Alison Leary

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Trust As the Foundation for Informed Decision-Making in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Diagnostic Testing: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Anthony MontgomeryNorthumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1118-7398
Vilma ChaliliAristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0009-0007-1592-781X
Olga LainidiUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7149-7902
Christos MouratidisUniversity of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom.
Ilias MaliousisUniversity of Essex, Essex, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-4031-5504
Konstantina PaitaridouUniversity of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom.
Alison LearyLondon South Bank University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7846-5658

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesVarious psychological concepts have been proposed over time as potential solutions to improving patient safety and quality of care. Psychological safety has been identified as a crucial mechanism of learning and development, and one that can facilitate optimal patient safety in healthcare. We investigated the quantitative evidence on the relationship between psychological safety and objective patient safety outcomes.

methodsWe searched 8 databases and conducted manual scoping to identify peer reviewed quantitative studies published up to February 2024. Objective patient safety outcomes of any type were eligible. The findings were analysed descriptively and discussed in a narrative synthesis.

resultsNine papers were selected for inclusion which reported on heterogeneous patient safety outcomes. Five studies showed a significant relationship between psychological safety and patient safety outcomes (e.g., ventilator associated events, reported medical errors). The majority of studies reported on the experiences of nurses working in healthcare from the USA. Patient safety is consistently characterised as the absence of harm rather than a culture that creates a safe environment.

conclusionsNo clear conclusions can be extracted regarding the relationship between psychological safety and patient safety. For example, reporting patient safety problems in a team can be an indication of both high and low psychological safety. Patient safety may be contradictory to elements of psychological safety, as the absence of harm is not congruent with a safety environment approach. Systematic review registration: This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD4202347829).

Indexed as

Patient SafetyHumansMedical ErrorsPsychological SafetyQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID40273220
PMCPMC12021220

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.