The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The missing evidence: a systematic review of patients' experiences of adverse events in health care
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Preventable patient harm due to adverse events (AEs) is a significant health problem today facing contemporary health care. Knowledge of patients' experiences of AEs is critical to improving health care safety and quality. A systematic review of studies of patients' experiences of AEs was conducted to report their experiences, knowledge gaps and any challenges encountered when capturing patient experience data. DATA SOURCES: Key words, synonyms and subject headings were used to search eight electronic databases from January 2000 to February 2015, in addition to hand-searching of reference lists and relevant journals. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts of publications were screened by two reviewers and checked by a third. Full-text articles were screened against the eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on design, methods and key findings were extracted and collated. RESULTS: Thirty-three publications demonstrated patients identifying a range of problems in their care; most commonly identified were medication errors, communication and coordination of care problems. Patients' income, education, health burden and marital status influence likelihood of reporting. Patients report distress after an AE, often exacerbated by receiving inadequate information about the cause. Investigating patients' experiences is hampered by the lack of large representative patient samples, data over sufficient time periods and varying definitions of an AE. CONCLUSION: Despite the emergence of policy initiatives to enhance patient engagement, few studies report patients' experiences of AEs. This information must be routinely captured and utilized to develop effective, patient-centred and system-wide policies to minimize and manage AEs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Similar to our findings, patient-provider miscommunication is often identified as a quality and safety concern by patients even without an adverse event [37].”
From The hospital-to-home care transition experience of home care clients: an exploratory study using patient journey mapping (2023) · cites this paper as [37]
Citations
Cites
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Institute of Medicine (2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,390
Wall, A. (2000) · British Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.12968/bjhc.2000.6.9.19311 · Cited by 5,912
Incidence of Adverse Events and Negligence in Hospitalized Patients
Brennan, T. A., Leape, L. L., Laird, N. M., Hebert, L. E., Localio, A. R., Lawthers, A. G., Newhouse, J. P., Weiler, P. C., & Hiatt, H. H. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199102073240604 · Cited by 4,631
The Quality in Australian Health Care Study
Wilson, R. M., Runciman, W. B., Gibberd, R. W., Harrison, B. T., Newby, L., & Hamilton, J. D. (1995) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1995.tb124691.x · Cited by 2,480
Aiken, L. H., Sermeus, W., den Heede, K. V., Sloane, D. M., Busse, R., McKee, M., Bruyneel, L., Rafferty, A. M., Griffiths, P., Moreno‐Casbas, T., et al. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e1717 · Cited by 2,279
Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review
Vincent, C. A., Neale, G., & Woloshynowych, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7285.517 · Cited by 2,075
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006) · Lancaster University · doi:10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 · Cited by 2,070 · cited 2×
“Studies that scored 50% or less of the maximum possible quality score (5) possessed the lowest scores on several common quality criteria [41–45, 70].”
Disseminating Innovations in Health Care
Berwick, D. M. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.15.1969 · Cited by 1,878
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Millenson M . Spoke feminists and the fight for participatory medicine: a history. J Participat Med 2011;3:e27.
- Health Canada. Exploring the Link between Public Involvement/Citizen Engagement and Quality Health Care: A Review and Analysis of the Current Literature. Ottawa, Canada: Health and Human Resources Strategies Division, 2003.
- Luxford K . The forgotten tenet: client focus and quality improvement in health care. Build Qual Health Care 2010;4:10–2.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Harrison, R., Jones, B., Gardner, P. H., & Lawton, R. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y · Cited by 570
Self-citationFrequency and Types of Patient-Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes
Bell, S. K., Delbanco, T., Elmore, J. G., Fitzgerald, P., Fossa, A. J., Harcourt, K., Leveille, S. G., Payne, T. H., Stametz, R. A., Walker, J., et al. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5867 · Cited by 242
The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review
Adams, C., Walpola, R. L., Schembri, A. M., & Harrison, R. (2022) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13577 · Cited by 183
Self-citationWalsh, C., Lydon, S., O’Dowd, E., & O’Connor, P. (2020) · Developmental Neurorehabilitation · doi:10.1080/17518423.2020.1716868 · Cited by 107
Mira, J. J., Lorenzo, S., Carrillo, I., Ferrús, L., Silvestre, C., Astier, P., Iglesias, F., MADERUELO, J. A., Pérez-Pérez, P., Torijano-Casalengua, M. L., et al. (2017) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzx056 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, R., Walton, M., Manias, E., Smith–Merry, J., Kelly, P., Iedema, R., & Robinson, L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Harrison, Reema
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-09-29
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 424-442
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W1938826846
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11
- FWCI
- 2.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
- Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
- Project Grant (1049703)
- NHMRC
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- adverse events, patient experience, patient harm, patient safety, medication errors, healthcare communication, care coordination, patient distress, patient engagement, quality of care
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Patients, 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
