ArticleScandinavian journal of caring sciences2026
Interorganisational Patient Safety Incident Reports: An Analytical Perspective.
Article in Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo obtain information on what kinds of patient safety incidents were reported between different healthcare organisations, which professional groups reported them, and what kind of development measures were planned to prevent recurrence of the patient safety incidents.
designThe data of this retrospective register study consisted of interorganisational patient safety incident reports (n = 1225) entered in the electronic incident reporting system from 2015 to 2021.
methodsThe reports were sent to the university hospital from other healthcare organisations belonging to the university hospital's specific catchment area in Finland. Numeric data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods and open-ended answers reporting development measures (n = 139) with inductive content analyses.
resultsThe majority of reported incidents between organisations were related to information flow and management (57%). The second most reported concerned medication, fluid therapies, blood transfusions, contrast, and marker patient safety incidents. Most of the reports were prepared by nurses, followed by physicians and other stakeholders. Many of the patient safety incidents reported were categorised as insignificant or low risk (67%). The type of incidents was usually 'incidents occurring to the patients', causing minor risk to the patient. Only a few interorganisational development measures were suggested.
conclusionsCollaboration between healthcare organisations should be improved to ensure timely and high-quality information transfer regarding the safe continuity of patient care. Incidents should be regularly reviewed and the planning of preventive measures for recurrent incidents should be conducted by interorganisational multi-professional teams, with the information in each organisation being disseminated at the unit level to improve safe care pathways. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: To avoid variations in patient safety incident risk assessment and increase its reliability, the risk assessment should be performed by qualified assessors. IMPACT: This study showed that patient data transfer with adequate documentation and communication must be ensured for the continuity of care and patient safety. Development of interorganisational collaboration between professionals is needed to safeguard patient transfers from one healthcare organisation to another and ensure the patient's integrated care pathway. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.