ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2025
Identifying hazards for psychological harm in cancer care using incident reports: searching for the invisible.
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Invisible harm in patient safety: a framework and definition for preventable psychological harm in cancer care.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
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
backgroundKeeping patients safe means not only preventing physical harm events, but also psychological harm. However, little is known about psychological harm in health care. The aim of this study was to investigate whether and what types of hazards for preventable psychological harm (PPH) were present in incidents reported by cancer care healthcare workers.
methodsIncidents reported by staff working in the wards and ambulatory infusion centres providing cancer care in three Swiss hospitals during the years 2022 and 2023 were qualitatively analysed in order to identify hazards for psychological harm. In an iterative process N = 623 reports were explored and a coding scheme developed.
resultsThe generated coding scheme distinguished events solely involving primary PPH from events in which primary PPH co-occurred with physical harm. Two and a half percent (2.5%) of the reports pointed to hazards for primary PPH, and 15% (15.4%) of the incidents reported PPH co-occurring with physical harm. The most frequently identified PPH hazard was 'not providing appropriate information to patients and their close others'. Events that were potentially psychologically harmful included 'communication issues', 'privacy or autonomy violations', and 'poor transitions of care'. In the group of incidents in which the potential for physical and psychological harm were concurrently prevalent, we identified errors potentially affecting the effectiveness of cancer care, and instances in which patients or their close others detected or prevented an error. Relatives or close others were mentioned in 17 (18%) of the PPH-related reports.
conclusionThis study suggests that while incident databases do contain reported hazards for primary PPH, it is likely that they are largely under represented. In line with existing research, we found hazards for PPH such as privacy or autonomy violations. Well-known safety hotspots, such as patient transfers, may pose hazards for psychological harm, suggesting that designing strong organizational practices may help prevent psychological harm. Future research needs to use other data sources and shed light on various perspectives to learn more about the variety of PPH, its causes, and potential consequences and preventive measures.
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.