Patient safety
Abstract
Patients appear in the patient safety agenda in three important places: first and foremost as the individual most likely to experience the positive benefits of good care or negative consequences of unsafe care; second, as surveyors of quality of care indicators; and finally, through their presence as patient representatives on institutional safety committees. However, patient safety programs largely address provider-interests, and many times overlook patient preferences and needs. Active engagement of the patient in all aspects of the patient safety agenda is necessary for its success. Patient safety, then, requires: a comprehensive agenda informed by patient preferences and experiences; an informed and motivated populace; mechanisms integrate safe practices and patient preferences, and investment in safety-enhancing devices and care strategies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model
Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P. (2006) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842 · Cited by 1,795 · see citing works
Self-citationSEIPS 3.0: human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety
Carayon, P., Wooldridge, A., Hoonakker, P., Hundt, A. S., & Kelly, M. M. (2020) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103033 · Cited by 493 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brennan, P. F., & Safran, C.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 7-8
- Pages
- 547-550
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1502530991
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Keywords
- patient safety, patient engagement, patient preferences, patient safety programs, quality of care, patient safety committee, patient representatives, patient experience
- MeSH terms
- Patient Care, Humans, Motivation, Patient Participation, Quality of Health Care, Safety, Health Behavior, Patient Satisfaction, Safety Management, Quality Indicators, Health Care
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