Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40762964›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in anaesthesiology2025

Using Safety-I, II, and III to level up patient safety.

Aubrey Samost-Williams, Karolina Brook

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in anaesthesiology, 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

2 authors.

Aubrey Samost-WilliamsCenter for Outcomes Research and Department of Anesthesiology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Karolina BrookDepartment of Anesthesiology, Boston Medical Center.

Funding

CTSA K12 Program at The University of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonK12TR004908 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI Charles C Miller, JON E. TYSON · 2024 to 2026
$2.9M
NCATS NIH HHS K12 TR004908
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review provides clinicians with an introduction to the theories underlying safety-I, II, and III. These are concepts that have recently been adapted to healthcare and are growing in popularity among patient safety experts. Clinicians will be encountering patient safety interventions and analyses rooted in these theories, making an understanding of the safety science behind them important. RECENT

findingsThere is a growing body of literature analyzing safety-I, II, and III in healthcare as well as multiple recently published applied case studies. SUMMARY: Safety-I, II, and III are complementary ways of considering how accidents occur and how systems can build safety. Safety-I assumes that accidents occur through linear chains of events, prompting searches for root causes of accidents. Safety-II is grounded in resilience engineering and posits that accidents occur due to variability, but variability can also be protective as people prevent harm from reaching patients. Safety-III assumes that safety emerges from the interactions of the people, software, and hardware in the system as they work to control their behavior within safe bounds. These three unique lenses on safety offer different lessons learned from accidents and different strategies to promote patient safety.

Indexed as

Medical ErrorsPatient SafetySafety ManagementHumanspatient safetyresilience engineeringsafety sciencesystems theory

Identifiers

PMID40762964
PMCPMC13038351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.