ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
Development of a trigger tool to identify adverse events and no-harm incidents in paediatric oncology: a modified Delphi process using expert knowledge and user experiences.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to develop a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool aimed at facilitating the detection of adverse events and no-harm incidents in the patient process from specialised hospital care to home healthcare in paediatric oncology. The development of the trigger tool addresses the need for enhanced safety knowledge in paediatric oncology, particularly as the field has increasingly transitioned from inpatient admissions to day care and home healthcare settings. Existing trigger tools do not fully meet the specific requirements of paediatric oncology, where care is collaboratively provided by patients, parents and healthcare professionals. Materials and methods: The study employed a multi-step process, including a literature search, a three-phase modified Delphi process, and the practical application of the trigger tool. All six Swedish paediatric oncology centres were represented in the Delphi process. Medical records were reviewed as part of the national multicentre study Patient Safety in Paediatric Oncology, which included participation from four out of six paediatric oncology centres, covering 64% of the population in Sweden. Data were collected from stakeholders representing the patient process from specialised hospital care to home healthcare in paediatric oncology, as well as from reviewers of medical records, and representatives with patient safety and trigger tool methodology expertise. Data were gathered through virtual meetings and web-based surveys, where the triggers were discussed and rated in terms of clinical relevance, comprehensibility and usefulness. Ratings were made using a four-point Likert scale. A dichotomisation process was used to assess consensus, defined as the proportion of respondents giving the same dichotomised rating. Result: The key outcome was the development of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool. The final tool consisted of 22 triggers with definitions and decision support information, designed to enhance understanding of patient safety in paediatric oncology. Conclusions: The application of a multi-step development process resulted in a final context-specific trigger tool, the Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool, addressing unique patient safety needs. The tool can be used in local safety initiatives aiming to improve safety for children with cancer. Additionally, this paper provides a transparent description of a systematic development process.
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.