Cited by 101Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealthcare Quality and Management

The measurement of active errors: methodological issues.

Open access
Lilford, R J·2003·Quality and Safety in Health Care

Abstract

The value of research in any topic area turns on its validity. Patient safety research has revealed--or, at least, given renewed urgency to--a raft of methodological issues. The meaning and thus the value of empirical research in this field is contingent on getting the methodology right. The need for good methods for the measurement of error is necessary whenever an inference is intended and, since inferences lie at the heart of research and management, there is a huge need to understand better how to make measurements that are meaningful, precise, and accurate. In this paper we consider issues relating to the measurement of error and the need for more research.

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/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii8

Cites

31 of 31 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

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: 4

  1. Dubois R, Rogers WH, Moxley J, et al. Hospital inpatient mortality: is it a product of quality? N Engl J Med 1987;317:674-80.
  2. Michel P, Quenon JL, Sarasqueta AM, et al. L'estimation du risque ´iatrogene graves dans les establissements de sante ´en France: les enseignements d'une e ´tude pilote dans la region Aquitaine. Etudes et Resultats 2003;219:1-8.
  3. Gigone D, Hastie R. The common knowledge effect: information sharing and group judgement. J Personality Soc Psychol 1993;65:959-74.
  4. ii12 Lilford, Mohammed, Braunholtz, et al www.qshc.com on July 14, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ Qual Saf Health Care: first published as 10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii8 on 26 November 2003. Downloaded from · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lilford, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Lilford, R J
Venue
Quality and Safety in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-12-01
Volume
12
Issue
90002
Pages
8ii-12
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2038071321
Cited by
101
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
patient safety, error measurement, measurement validity, methodological issues, patient safety research
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Medical Errors, Empirical Research

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