ArticleMedical education2026
Serious safety events as a window into clinical learning environment dynamics: A qualitative situational analysis.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serious safety events as a window into clinical learning environment dynamics: A qualitative situational analysis.Medical education · 2026Article
- The view from within: Professional identity formation when safety events involve trainees.Medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinical learning environments (CLE) are complex and have not been thoroughly explored from the perspective of advancing conceptual understanding of their unique dynamics. An opportunity to advance this understanding rests in examining specific situations, such as what happens when a student/trainee has been involved in a serious patient safety event.
methodsShaped by concepts of negotiated orders and discourses, we conducted a qualitative, interpretive study in a large urban university and affiliated health science centre in Canada using document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Documents and interview transcripts were analysed using concepts and tools from Adele Clarke's situational analysis.
resultsBetween March 2022 and April 2023, we conducted 17 interviews with staff physicians (n = 6), medical residents (n = 2), safety leaders and/or university administrators (n = 9). Analysis revealed counter-vailing forces that must be constantly interpreted, negotiated and re-negotiated by participants attempting to deliver on the aspirations of the CLE. Furthermore, analysis revealed potentially competing discourses about the nature of learning in the CLE, animating long-standing tensions about the role of the CLE in developing clinical expertise and professional identity. DISCUSSION: Our study reveals counter-vailing forces, interacting policies and potential disagreements about the learning imperatives and priorities of the CLE. These counter-vailing pressures shape learning about patient safety. More than learning content or process, invested groups must also learn to negotiate risks and responsibilities distributed across multiple social arenas. These distributions are changing. Understanding these dynamics is essential for educators and researchers seeking to positively influence the CLE. Future CLE research should account for the various pressures acting on health service organizations and the possible implications for educational mandates in these spaces.
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.