Cited by 148Health Policy Implementation SciencePatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Quality and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices: Figure 1

Abstract

Theories provide a way of understanding and predicting the effects of patient safety practices (PSPs), interventions intended to prevent or mitigate harm caused by healthcare or risks of such harm. Yet most published evaluations make little or no explicit reference to theory, thereby hindering efforts to generalise findings from one context to another. Theories from a wide range of disciplines are potentially relevant to research on PSPs. Theory can be used in research to explain clinical and organisational behaviour, to guide the development and selection of PSPs, and in evaluating their implementation and mechanisms of action. One key recommendation from an expert consensus process is that researchers should describe the theoretical basis for chosen intervention components or provide an explicit logic model for ‘why this PSP should work.’ Future theory-driven evaluations would enhance generalisability and help build a cumulative understanding of the nature of change.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.047993

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 49 references

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. McDonald KM Graham ID Grimshaw J . Chapter 3. Toward a theoretic basis for quality improvement interventions from closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. In: Shojania KG McDonald KM Wachter RM , eds. Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–148 of 148

Metadata

Authors
Foy, R., Ovretveit, J., Shekelle, P. G., Pronovost, P. J., Taylor, S. L., Dy, S., Hempel, S., McDonald, K. M., Rubenstein, L. V., & Wachter, R. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Foy, Robbie
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-02-11
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
453-459
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2116131319
Cited by
148
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
20.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
patient safety measures, theory-based evaluation, implementation evaluation, logic model, generalizability, intervention development, mechanism of action, expert consensus, organizational behavior
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Planning Techniques, Psychological Theory, Models, Organizational, Safety Management

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