ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
What Do Consumers Need Before, During and After a Patient Safety Incident Review? A Qualitative Study.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWhen a patient (consumer) suffers serious harm that is considered preventable, healthcare organisations typically conduct a review (or investigation) of the incident to better understand what happened and why, and take action to prevent similar incidents from reoccurring. These reviews and associated other organisational responses can compound psychological harm to consumers. Understanding how consumer needs can be met during these processes may assist in reducing this harm. This study aimed to understand what is important to consumers before, during and after patient safety incident reviews, as framed by their experiences.
methodsParticipants were purposely recruited through patient advocacy organisations, including newsletter advertisements, and through consumer representatives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted over video conference with consumers and consumer representatives between April 2024 and March 2025, and transcribed verbatim. The data analysis utilised grounded theory techniques, including inductive analysis, theoretical saturation and constant comparison, to identify key needs and perspectives of consumers during patient safety incident reviews.
resultsA total of 28 participants were recruited and participated in 21 interviews and one focus group, across four states and territories in Australia (New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland). Analysis identified that consumers want more empathetic, practical and inclusive support throughout patient safety incident reviews, with clearer communication, transparency and accountability. Consumers want their voices heard, valued and documented across the review. They also want opportunities for greater and more flexible involvement in the review process, and a structured mechanism to track, report and communicate implementation changes, driven by a desire to prevent patient safety incidents from recurring.
conclusionsEnsuring the response to incidents is more patient-centred, through more meaningful engagement and consideration of consumers' emotional, psychological, communication and transparency, accountability and practical needs, is an important way forward. A patient-centred relational approach, complementing systems-based reviews, will contribute to learning and improvement following an incident, enhance consumers' experience, including reducing compounded harm, and support them in regaining trust in the healthcare system. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There were 28 consumers with experience of patient safety reviews or as consumer representatives interviewed. This study is part of a 4-year project that includes a research advisory committee comprised of six consumers from four jurisdictions. They are involved throughout the project lifecycle and advise the project team on methodology and the broad interpretation of the data across the project. In this study, they were invited to be study participants.
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.