Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40424264›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Emergency department's patient safety culture perceived by healthcare workers: A scoping review protocol.

Min Ji Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Min Ji KimDepartment of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8444-4025

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A strong patient safety culture is critical for ensuring effective healthcare systems, particularly in high-risk environments such as emergency departments. Assessing patient safety culture requires the identification of strengths and weaknesses within clinical departments to enable targeted improvement. Patient safety in emergency departments is especially vulnerable due to overcrowding, necessity for rapid decision-making, and high pressure. However, the existing literature has not been systematically mapped to understand how healthcare workers perceive the patient safety culture in these settings. This scoping review aims to synthesize and map available evidence on patient safety culture as perceived by healthcare workers in emergency departments. This review will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology designed explicitly for scoping reviews, and the results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The inclusion criteria will be based on the Population (healthcare workers), Concept (patient safety culture), and Context (emergency department settings) framework. A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, KISS, and grey literature sources, such as ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global and Google Scholar. Study selection and data extraction will be performed independently by two researchers, with a third researcher resolving discrepancies. Descriptive analysis will summarize the study characteristics, while content and thematic analyses will identify key themes related to patient safety culture. The findings will be presented at academic conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHealth PersonnelPatient SafetySafety ManagementHumansOrganizational CultureScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40424264
PMCPMC12111689

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.