ArticleJournal of patient safety2025
Clinician Communication and Patient Safety in Pediatrics: A Practical Application of Human-Centered Design for Problem Identification and Analysis.
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. 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.
- Perceptions of Secure Messaging and Patient Safety: Results of an Interprofessional Survey.Hospital pediatrics · 2026Article
- Characterization of Communication-Related Safety Events in a Pediatric Quaternary Care Hospital.Journal of patient safety · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe established a Patient Safety Learning Lab (AHRQ R18HS029473) to examine the sociotechnical system that drives interprofessional communication in pediatric inpatient settings in the context of evolving communication technologies, and to co-create and evaluate solutions with clinician end users. Here, we describe the use of human-centered design and system engineering processes for the Problem Analysis phase of this project.
methodsWe applied the "Empathize" and "Define" steps of the design thinking process to our Problem Analysis. The goal of the Empathize step is to generate a comprehensive understanding of a problem(s) as experienced by the end user. We conducted interviews and observations with interprofessional clinicians from pediatric inpatient units in a single children's hospital. We used other operational and clinical data to triangulate findings (clinician secure messaging metadata, survey data, and policies/procedures). In the "Define" step, we iteratively developed user-centered problem statements.
resultsData synthesized for the problem analysis included: interviews with 28 clinicians, 32 hours of unit observations; metadata for 433,432 secure messages; 155 free-text clinician survey responses; and 40 communication-related policies/procedures. The Problem Analysis revealed communication challenges in the following domains for clinicians providing frontline care (i.e., bedside nurses, residents, frontline fellows): (1) efficiently locating and contacting other members of the care team; (2) communicating urgency level of information; and (3) managing high volume of minimally informative messages.
conclusionsPractical application of human-centered design and systems thinking contributed to a more holistic understanding of communication challenges, and their patient safety implications, from the perspective of multiple end-user groups.
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.