ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2025
'How are we going to harm the next trauma patient?' Trauma care providers' perspective on potential harm to trauma patients.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The question, "How will the next patient be harmed?" is a component of strategies used to identify latent safety risks in healthcare. We sought to survey a broad audience attending the 2023 annual conference of the American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program to record their perception of the risks that might lead to patient harm at their own trauma centers. Methods: Attendees were surveyed with a single free-text question "How are we going to harm the next patient?" using a quick response code. All responses were categorized into clustered themes. To report the results using a standardized reporting taxonomy, the responses were also classified according to the Joint Commission (JC) patient safety event taxonomy for near misses and adverse events. Results were reported as counts and as proportions of responders. Results: During the 3-day duration of the conference, 64 participants provided 80 responses. Provider-related risk (n=16, 25.0%) was the most commonly reported category, followed closely by practice management guideline related (n=14, 21.9%) and communication gaps or failures (n=12, 18.8%). "Clinical performance" was the most commonly reported subclassification in the main category "type" of the JC patient safety event taxonomy (n=34, 53.1%), followed by patient management (n=30, 46.9%). "Human error" was the most common subclassification in the main category "cause" (n=48, 75.0%). Conclusions: Human failures, rather than systems issues, were perceived to be responsible for the majority of potential harm in trauma patients by a broad audience of trauma care providers. These results require amplified focus on strategies that decrease the impact of the human element while enhancing process standardization and addressing barriers to the implementation of processes and guidelines. It might also suggest an opportunity to bring forward alternative conceptual frameworks to advance safety in trauma care.
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.