Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42642703›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026

Supporting Sound Reasoning in Patient Safety: Mental Models.

James N Woodruff, Keith J Ruskin

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James N WoodruffDepartment of Medicine, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. jwoodruf@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6050-820X
Keith J RuskinThe Department of Anesthesiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

Federal Aviation Administration 692M151940006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in cognitive science have transformed our understanding of how humans learn and solve problems. Instead of relying on formal rules of logic, humans use mental models (internal representations that simulate how systems work) as the foundation of their reasoning. Accurate and shared mental models have been shown to improve reasoning, situational awareness, anticipation, and coordination-skills that are essential for managing complexity in healthcare. This article traces our understanding of how mental models have implicitly shaped the evolution of patient safety philosophies. By reviewing the historical progression of safety models from linear, mechanistic approaches such as Reason's Swiss Cheese Model to complex adaptive systems perspectives such as Safety-II, we show how changing mental models have defined what "safety" means in practice. We then argue that continued progress in patient safety depends on a more deliberate use of mental models that reflects the heterogeneous, socio-technical nature of modern healthcare. Further, we introduce an integrative model that synthesizes these perspectives into a single, conceptually coherent framework, providing educators and frontline clinicians with a tool for understanding and improving systems performance in real-world settings.

Indexed as

clinical reasoningmedical educationmental modelspatient safetyresilience

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.