ArticlePloS one2026
Understanding discrepancies in perceived importance of patient safety measures between patients and healthcare professionals in perioperative care: An exploratory study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety is a critical concern in perioperative care. This study explores the discrepancies in how patients and healthcare professionals perceive the importance of perioperative patient safety outcome measures, aiming to improve the development of future Core Outcome Sets (COS).
methodsQualitative exploratory study using focus groups with healthcare professionals and patients involved in the Core Outcome Set for Patient Safety in Perioperative Care. Data were collected through online mini-focus groups and analysed using thematic qualitative text analysis.
resultsCommunication failure emerged as the predominant cross-cutting issue across discussions, particularly in relation to discrepancies in expectations, information exchange, and understanding between healthcare professionals and patients. Three primary reasons for discrepancies in attributed importance of indicators were identified: different targets/focus; knowledge gaps; and varying importance placed on the sense of safety. Patients often emphasized subjective experiences, fears, and emotional impacts, leading them to prioritize quality of life indicators and long-term effects. In contrast, healthcare professionals focused on system-level factors and resource limitations, giving greater weight to technical and physiological outcomes. DISCUSSION/
conclusionThe study findings underscore the need for a more holistic approach in developing COS, balancing technical medical outcomes with patient-centered quality of life 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.