ArticleJournal of patient safety2025
Engineering Safe Care Journeys: Designing a Patient Safety Passport.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to use a participatory Human Factors Engineering (HFE) approach to identify key design guidelines and design requirements of a patient safety passport (PSP) to improve patient safety at care transition points along the patient journey.
methodsWe conducted a work system analysis and participatory design process to integrate the needs of multiple perspectives using cognitive interviews, contextual inquiry, team-based analysis, and codesign sessions.
resultsWe conducted semistructured interviews (N=29) with clinicians. We also conducted 20 contextual inquiry observations of older adult patients in the emergency department (ED) followed by 20 interviews with the ED clinicians who cared for those patients. We mapped the care transition process that included transitioning to the ED, being seen in the ED, and transitioning from the ED to the next location. We identified 21 categories representing the interaction of work system barriers and facilitators to safe ED care transitions. We identified 5 design guidelines, which provide the overarching conceptual characteristics of a PSP, and 5 design requirements to guide PSP design.
conclusionsOur participatory HFE approach with a multidisciplinary design team identified key design guidelines and requirements for a PSP. Although this work was focused on the ED, a PSP is likely applicable to a range of care transition domains. Future work should seek to validate and refine PSP design requirements and guidelines across domains as part of a learning health system that can transform care transitions to be points of patient safety resilience.
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.