Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40379285›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

Experiences of the development and use of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool.

Charlotte Engvall, Maria Unbeck, Margaretha Stenmarker, Axel Ros, Ann-Christine Andersson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Charlotte EngvallDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden chaer591@student.liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-8781-6172
Maria UnbeckSchool of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5090-0352
Margaretha StenmarkerDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9631-5757
Axel RosJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6302-8068
Ann-Christine AnderssonJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0409-1985

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrigger tools are widely used for detecting adverse events. Within the multicentre study Patient Safety in Paediatric Oncology, a trigger tool was created to address the unique needs of paediatric oncology. Although trigger tools are highly valued for detecting adverse events, concerns about their usability and reliability persist. Understanding the perspectives of medical record reviewers using these tools may provide valuable insights for improving their usability and reliability. This study aimed to explore the experiences of medical record reviewers involved in the development and use of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool.

methodsA descriptive qualitative case study was conducted to investigate the experiences of medical record reviewers participating in the development and use of the Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool. Data were collected through a semi-structured focus group interview conducted via Zoom, involving six reviewers with varying levels of experience in paediatric oncology and trigger tool methodology. The interview was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The written text was analysed in its entirety using reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsThe analysis revealed an overarching theme of

conclusionsThis study offers a comprehensive examination and clarity regarding the development and use of a patient safety instrument, a process marked by both challenges and facilitators from the perspective of medical record reviewers. The study underscores the need for resources, training and support during the review process to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the trigger tool.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyPediatricsChildFocus GroupsHumansPatient SafetyQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsAdverse events, epidemiology and detectionPaediatricsPatient safetyQualitative researchTrigger tools

Identifiers

PMID40379285
PMCPMC12083418

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.