ArticleBMJ open2025
Use of health equity tools in patient safety incident analyses: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to investigate the use and effectiveness of equity tools in current practices of patient safety incident analyses via a scoping review of the literature.
designScoping review of the literature using the two main search term concepts "health equity" AND "safety review". The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist was used to report in this paper. DATA SOURCES: Databases including but not limited to MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed were searched from inception to 16 January 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that included an equity tool in patient safety reviews were included. There were no restrictions on language or setting for included studies. Review articles were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search and screen included articles. Data from included studies was extracted and compiled.
resultsFive studies out of 5026 screened studies were included in the final analysis, 4 were conducted in the USA and 1 in Norway. While all studies identified equity domains to guide their approach to the provision of more equitable care, only three proposed change ideas and one implemented their framework to evaluate the role of social determinants and bias in adverse events. Communication was the most common theme found across four of the five studies. Access to healthcare services and bias were included as equity domains in two of the five studies. Implicit bias training was one of the identified change ideas. Other change ideas included improving access and communication, for example, through increasing the use and availability of interpreter services. One of the studies piloted the implementation of their equity checklist and found adverse event causes rooted in equity in 50% of the cases.
conclusionsThis scoping review demonstrates that there is a gap in current patient safety incident analyses, specifically lacking the consideration of equity domains. The development of a comprehensive health equity tool is necessary to promote equitable and safe 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.