Cited by 281Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsMedical Coding and Health InformationHealthcare Quality and Management

Towards an International Classification for Patient Safety: the conceptual framework

Open access
The World Alliance For Patient Safety Drafting Group, Sherman, H., Castro, G., Fletcher, M., on behalf of The World Alliance for Patient Safety, Hatlie, M., Hibbert, P., Jakob, R. +8 more·2009·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

Global advances in patient safety have been hampered by the lack of a uniform classification of patient safety concepts. This is a significant barrier to developing strategies to reduce risk, performing evidence-based research and evaluating existing healthcare policies relevant to patient safety. Since 2005, the World Health Organization's World Alliance for Patient Safety has undertaken the Project to Develop an International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) to devise a classification which transforms patient safety information collected from disparate systems into a common format to facilitate aggregation, analysis and learning across disciplines, borders and time. A drafting group, comprised of experts from the fields of patient safety, classification theory, health informatics, consumer/patient advocacy, law and medicine, identified and defined key patient safety concepts and developed an internationally agreed conceptual framework for the ICPS based upon existing patient safety classifications. The conceptual framework was iteratively improved through technical expert meetings and a two-stage web-based modified Delphi survey of over 250 international experts. This work culminated in a conceptual framework consisting of ten high level classes: incident type, patient outcomes, patient characteristics, incident characteristics, contributing factors/hazards, organizational outcomes, detection, mitigating factors, ameliorating actions and actions taken to reduce risk. While the framework for the ICPS is in place, several challenges remain. Concepts need to be defined, guidance for using the classification needs to be provided, and further real-world testing needs to occur to progressively refine the ICPS to ensure it is fit for purpose.

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 · 10.1093/intqhc/mzn054

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • The ICPS framework is based upon existing classifications such as AIMS, with additional input from international experts in safety, systems engineering, health policy, medicine, and the law.

    “The framework is based upon existing classifications such as AIMS, with additional input from international experts in safety, systems engineering, health policy, medicine, and the law.5 28 29”

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: 2

  1. World Health Organization International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 2004 Geneva World Health Organization 109 vol. 2., 10th Revision
  2. Reason J Human Error 1990 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The World Alliance For Patient Safety Drafting Group, Sherman, H., Castro, G., Fletcher, M., on behalf of The World Alliance for Patient Safety, Hatlie, M., Hibbert, P., Jakob, R., Koss, R., Lewalle, P., Loeb, J., Perneger, T., Runciman, W., Thomson, R., Van Der Schaaf, T., & Virtanen, M.
Affiliations
  • Joint Commission (US)
  • National Patient Safety Agency (GB)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Sherman, H.
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
2009-02-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
2-8
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W2138968928
Cited by
281
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 7
FWCI
17.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
patient safety, conceptual framework, incident classification, patient outcomes, contributing factors, risk mitigation, World Alliance for Patient Safety, Delphi method, health informatics
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, International Cooperation, Safety Management, Medical Errors

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