ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Systems Thinking in Mental Health Patient Safety: A Narrative Review of Complex Adaptive Systems.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Root Cause Analysis to Systems Thinking: A Comparative Content Analysis of Patient Safety Incident Investigation Reports in Mental Healthcare.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Perceptions and Enhancement Needs of Psychiatric Nurses on Patient Safety Competency: A Phenomenological Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Understanding adverse incident responses in mental health care: a qualitative study of systems-based patient safety practices.BMJ open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the growth of knowledge and interest into safety and quality in healthcare more generally, the exploration in mental healthcare has been deemed to be in a narrow isolated 'world of its own'. It is possible that relatively little attention is being paid to the processes and interdependencies within the mental health patient safety system. This may result in simplistic static measures of what the system/organisation has, not what it does (or doesn't do). This can limit the potential for learning and affecting change. To investigate systems thinking in mental health patient safety, we conducted a narrative review into the extent of evidence streams supporting systems and complexity thinking approaches. We sourced a total of 89 reports for analysis with six themes identified. These themes included studies evaluating patient safety events that have occurred within mental healthcare, research that has investigated components of the safety system, and studies that have investigated how patient safety incidents are responded to, investigated, and learned from. The review evaluated the use of systems thinking and complexity research in patient safety, and research encapsulating patient and carer involvement. Most research has focused on the analysis of historic approaches to incident investigation and on system-based factors of patient safety, with little attention being paid to systems and complexity thinking approaches. The relationships between components were often ignored in the non-systemic studies sourced, with relationships between components not investigated and unknown. With policymakers recommending changes in patient safety practice through system-based approaches, it is important that its implementation is evaluated robustly with consideration of the multiple levels of the healthcare system. Future research should aim to incorporate systems-thinking approaches to model the safety system, and to improve our understanding of the highly interconnected technical and social entities that dynamically produce emergent behaviour across the system.
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.