Cited by 493Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsErgonomics and Human FactorsHealthcare Quality and Management

SEIPS 3.0: human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety

Open access
Carayon, Pascale, Wooldridge, Abigail, Hoonakker, Peter, Hundt, Ann Schoofs, Kelly, Michelle M.·2020·Applied Ergonomics

Abstract

The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) and SEIPS 2.0 models provide a framework for integrating Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) in health care quality and patient safety improvement. As care becomes increasingly distributed over space and time, the "process" component of the SEIPS model needs to evolve and represent this additional complexity. In this paper, we review different ways that the process component of the SEIPS models have been described and applied. We then propose the SEIPS 3.0 model, which expands the process component, using the concept of the patient journey to describe the spatio-temporal distribution of patients' interactions with multiple care settings over time. This new SEIPS 3.0 sociotechnical systems approach to the patient journey and patient safety poses several conceptual and methodological challenges to HFE researchers and professionals, including the need to consider multiple perspectives, issues with genuine participation, and HFE work at the boundaries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103033

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research syntheses argue that safety improvement depends on understanding how information flows, organisational routines, and technological artefacts co-evolve over time.

    “For example, research syntheses argue that safety improvement depends on understanding how information flows, organisational routines, and technological artefacts co-evolve over time (16, 25).”

    From Why digital health fails silently: a sociotechnical theory of health information technology–related risk (2026) · cites this paper as [25]

    In “The SEIPS 3.0 Model – A Sociotechnical Systems Approach to Patient Journey” (page unavailable), the paper argues that understanding patient safety requires examining work systems over time as they adapt to changes in technology and work organization. “Working at the Interface” also discusses communication and information management across care settings. It does not, however, make the more specific claim that information flows, organisational routines, and technological artefacts co-evolve over time. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Carayon P, DuBenske LL, McCabe BC, Shaw B, Gaines ME, Kelly MM, … Cox ED (2011). Work system barriers and facilitators to family engagement in rounds in a pediatric hospital In Albolino S, Bagnara S, Bellandi T, Llaneza J, Rosal G, & Tartaglia R (Eds.), Healthcare Systems Ergonomics and Patient Safety 2011 (pp. 81– 85). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  2. Kirwan B, & Ainsworth LK (1992). A Guide to Task Analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.
  3. Matthieu JE, Marks MA, & Zaccaro SJ (2001). Multiteam systems In Anderson N (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 289– 313).
  4. NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine). (2018a). Crossing the Global Quality Chasm. Retrieved from Washington DC: 30605296

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carayon, P., Wooldridge, A., Hoonakker, P., Hundt, A. S., & Kelly, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Carayon, Pascale
Venue
Applied Ergonomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
84
Pages
103033
ISSN
0003-6870 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2999992662
Cited by
493
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 120 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 22 · 2012: 1
FWCI
46.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ergonomics and Human Factors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
SEIPS model, patient journey, patient safety, human factors and ergonomics, socio-technical systems, process of care
MeSH terms
Humans, Ergonomics, Models, Theoretical, Quality of Health Care, Systems Analysis, Task Performance and Analysis, Safety Management, Medical Errors, Quality Improvement, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review