The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine
Open accessAbstract
Adverse events are incidents in which a patient is unintentionally harmed by medical treatment. Awareness while under anaesthetic, deaths during surgery, and missed cases of meningitis are tragic for both patients and staff, and may lead to complaints or litigation. Investigations usually focus on the actions of individual doctors and seldom examine the background to these events. In a recent case of a patient whose bowel was perforated during surgery, examination of the medical records led to criticism of the surgeon. Only later did it emerge that the operation had been carried out in near darkness because of several equipment and power problems. Adverse events usually originate in a variety of systemic features operating at different levels—the task, the team, the work environment, and the organisation. We present a framework that aims to encompass the many factors influencing clinical practice. It can be used to guide the investigation of incidents, to generate ways of assessing risk, and to focus research on the causes and prevention of adverse outcomes. The original model for accident assessment was developed for use in complex industrial settings such as offshore drilling platforms #### Summary points Adverse events in which patients are harmed by medical treatment are common Investigations which consider only actions or omissions of individual clinicians are incomplete and misleading Psychological research shows that liability to error is strongly affected by adverse conditions of work These conditions include high workload, inadequate supervision, poor communication, rapid change within an organisation A framework of risk factors allows a systematic approach to safety and error reduction In spite of increased attention to quality, errors and adverse outcomes are still frequent in clinical practice.1 The risk of iatrogenic injury to patients in acute hospitals remains high, with studies reporting rates of 4-17%.2-4 A recent American observational study found that …
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research
Maas, A. I. R., Menon, D. K., Adelson, P. D., Andelic, N., Bell, M. J., Belli, A., Bragge, P., Brazinova, A., Büki, A., Chesnut, R. M., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30371-x · Cited by 2,609
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
Holden, R. J., Carayon, P., Gurses, A. P., Hoonakker, P., Hundt, A. S., Ozok, A. A., & Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J. (2013) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.838643 · Cited by 1,221
Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals
Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2003) · Surgery · doi:10.1067/msy.2003.169 · Cited by 1,082
Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2010.042085 · Cited by 897
Metadata
- Authors
- Vincent, C., Taylor-Adams, S., & Stanhope, N.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-04-11
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 7138
- Pages
- 1154-1157
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2010675220
- Cited by
- 906
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1154
- The paper
- Vincent, C., Taylor-Adams, S., & Stanhope, N. (1998). Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1154
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.