Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 568

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety

Open access
Cook, R. I·2000·BMJ

Abstract

The patient safety movement includes a wide variety of approaches and views about how to characterise patient safety, study failure and success, and improve safety. Ultimately all these approaches make reference to the nature of technical work of practitioners at the “sharp end” in the complex, rapidly changing, intrinsically hazardous world of health care. 1 2 It is clear that a major activity of technical workers (physicians, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, and others) is coping with complexity and, in particular, coping with the gaps that complexity spawns.3 Exploration of gaps and the way practitioners anticipate, detect, and bridge them is a fruitful means of pursuing robust improvements in patient safety. #### Summary points Complex systems involve many gaps between people, stages, and processes Analysis of accidents usually reveals the presence of many gaps, yet only rarely do gaps produce accidents Safety is increased by understanding and reinforcing practitioners' normal ability to bridge gaps This view contradicts the normal view that systems need to be isolated from the unreliable human element We know little about how practitioners identify and bridge new gaps that occur when systems change The notion of gaps is simple. Gaps are discontinuities in care. They may appear as losses of information or momentum or interruptions in delivery of care. In practice gaps rarely lead to overt failure. Rather, most gaps are anticipated, identified, and bridged andtheir consequences nullified by the technical work done at the sharp end. These gap driven activities are so intimately woven into the fabric of technical work that neither outsiders nor insiders recognise them as distinct from other technical work. Gaps are most readily seen when they are aligned with organisational and institutionalboundaries that mark changes in responsibility or authority, different roles of professionals, or formal divisions of labour. For example, the loss of coherence in …

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791

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.

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

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

See all 568

Metadata

Authors
Cook, R. I.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-03-18
Volume
320
Issue
7237
Pages
791-794
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020295846
Cited by
568
References
0
FWCI
18.26
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: Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791
The paper
Cook, R. I. (2000). Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791

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.