SynthesisBMJ open2026
Implementation of safety management systems (SMS) in healthcare: a systematic review and international comparison.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
objectivesMany industries where safety is a priority (eg, aviation) use safety management systems (SMSs), but evidence on their use in healthcare is needed to determine whether they could support patient safety improvement. We investigated the application of national-level SMSs to patient safety in terms of effectiveness, implementation and experience.
designSystematic review using a case study approach. DATA SOURCES: We identified patient safety organisations in each country and searched their websites. We also searched MEDLINE (in December 2023) and Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science (in February 2024). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any evidence from five high-income countries that have publicly funded healthcare systems with universal coverage: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the Netherlands. We included publications on the effectiveness, implementation or experience of the patient safety approach in each country. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Included evidence was summarised and mapped onto an initial analytical framework based on analysis of SMSs in high-risk industries, enabling cross-country comparisons. Drafts were shared with experts from patient safety organisations in each country for comment. Formal quality appraisal was not possible as most evidence was non-evaluative.
results53 publications were included, from Australia (5), Canada (7), Ireland (8), New Zealand (9) and the Netherlands (24). Only the Netherlands implemented a patient safety programme explicitly based on an SMS approach. Some aspects of patient safety in hospitals improved as a result, but there was significant variation in both the implementation of the programme and attributed outcomes.In the other four countries, the main components of an SMS were identified to some extent, along with evidence that their patient safety approaches had been influenced by concepts from high-risk industries and 'safety science' more widely.
conclusionsEmerging ideas from high-risk industries (beyond SMSs) and broader safety science have influenced all countries, reflecting increasing awareness of the need for initiatives to be context-specific to be successful. However, their implementation and impact need further evaluation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023487512.
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.