ArticleHealth care management review
Patient and clinician perspectives of high-reliability organizing in practice: A qualitative study of cancer teams.
Article in Health care management review. 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.
- Longitudinal Interplay Between Team Resilience and Team Stress in Low-Stability Clinical Nursing Teams: A Cross-Lagged Panel Network Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth care organizations have failed to replicate the performance of high-reliability organizations (HROs), systems that operate nearly error-free despite inherently complex, interdependent, and time-pressured environments. PURPOSES: We sought to better understand conditions that facilitate and inhibit HRO in health care by expanding the conceptualization of who contributes to high reliability to include patients. We also examine how cancer care teams and patients describe jointly enacting (or failing to enact) each of the five HRO principles. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We conducted a qualitative field study, interviewing 25 oncology clinicians from diverse roles (e.g., surgery, nursing, dentistry) (17 interviews) and eight cancer patients. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded for barriers and facilitators to the five HRO principles.
findingsWe identified conditions that supported and hindered high-reliability cancer care. HRO principles commonly overlapped to support or hinder system resilience. A common barrier was insufficient processes to proactively identify clinical deterioration. Patients and their family caregiver(s) were primarily responsible for monitoring their health and identifying and communicating any signs of deterioration. Cancer patients and caregivers were routinely engaged as team members, and patients developed expertise throughout treatment, thereby supporting system safety.
conclusionsThese findings expand the conceptualization of how high reliability is produced. Specifically, we highlight the key role that patients play in preventing errors and monitoring care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings expand our understanding of how HRO principles interact to promote cancer care system safety and elucidate how patients and their family caregivers contribute to system resilience. This work can inform the redesign of care processes to optimize patient safety.
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.