The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 35 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model
Open accessAbstract
Models and methods of work system design need to be developed and implemented to advance research in and design for patient safety. In this paper we describe how the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model of work system and patient safety, which provides a framework for understanding the structures, processes and outcomes in health care and their relationships, can be used toward these ends. An application of the SEIPS model in one particular care setting (outpatient surgery) is presented and other practical and research applications of the model are described.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Own interpretation · 26 Sources not found · 9 No full text of the sources · 9 Own result · 4 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tasks, tools, and organization coincide with an issue repeatedly reported by staff concerning the process of obtaining clinical information on patients in a timely fashion.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, quality and safety issues identified were related to insufficient and potentially inaccurate information then collected because of the last minute nature of these clinical assessments.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Staff responses to the questionnaire were also associated with various processes (including care processes) and outcomes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Staff responses to the questionnaire can be associated with numerous aspects of the work system.29”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29] 29. Carayon P, Gurses AP, Hundt AS, et al. Performance obstacles and facilitators of healthcare providers. In: Korunka C, Hoffmann P, eds. Change and quality in human service work. Munich: Hampp Publishers, 2005:257-76.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“and nesting itself in a model familiar to many health care professionals-namely, Donabedian's quality model.11 12”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 11 12
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, components of the work system (such as the organization or the environment) and their interdependencies may be overlooked or underemphasized.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The interactions between the various components ''produce'' different outcomes: performance, safety and health, and quality of working life.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5][6][7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Donabedian's model explicitly links the structure and processes of care to subsequent patient outcomes.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessing patient safety and designing systems that produce safe patient care can be accomplished by using the SEIPS model that integrates Donabedian's structure-processoutcome (SPO) framework and the work system model (fig 1).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SEIPS model builds on this idea by showing how work system design (structure) is linked to patient safety (outcome) through care processes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 66
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They also emphasized coordination issues related to patient information.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, it was easier to understand comments on the staff questionnaire concerning the work space.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They commented about the low quality of communication with patients regarding preoperative preparation (for example, understanding of instructions) and postoperative recovery (for example, inconsistencies in providers' instructions).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, unavailability of patient related information sometimes can lead to cancellations of surgeries on the day they are scheduled.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A review of the floor plans helped the research team further understand the reasons for these concerns.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Staff offered suggestions to remedy this problem through redesign of forms and changes in policy and job design.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here staff conveyed the inherent inefficiencies of tracking down information that should have been previously provided.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, concern was expressed by staff regarding the lack of privacy for patients and high noise levels.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This gave us greater insight concerning the expectations for the various positions as well as how each centre was organized according to the various tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case the plans provided an understanding of the work flow and offered a greater appreciation for the confidentiality issues identified during the patient shadowing.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the work system model applied to patient safety complements and expands Donabedian's framework.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changes to any aspect of the work system will, depending on how the change or improvement is designed and implemented, either negatively or positively affect the work and clinical processes and the consequent patient, employee, and organizational outcomes.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The discipline of human factors emphasizes interactions between people and their environment that contribute to performance, safety and health, and quality of working life, and the goods or services produced.13 14”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 13 14
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In Donabedian's model, the structure includes the organizational structure (work system model component = organization); the material resources (work system model components = environment, technology/tools); and the human resources (work system model components = care provider, tasks).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the work system in which care is provided affects both the work and clinical processes, which in turn influence the patient, employee, and organizational outcomes of care.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our SEIPS model does not highlight any single element of the work system.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to the work system model, a person (the person could be a care provider, another employee of a healthcare institution such as a biomedical engineer, a unit clerk, or the patient) performs a range of tasks using various tools and technologies.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5][6][7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Donabedian 20 concludes that direct relationships may exist between structure, process and outcome.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. Donabedian A. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1980.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This reflects the fact that most of the focus of the SPO model centres on the providers and their relationship with the processes and outcome(s)-that is, quality is assessed by the way in which care is provided by an individual or care team as well as the outcome of the care.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Donabedian's two other means of assessing quality include evaluating the process(es) of care (how provider tasks and clinical processes are both organized and performed) and evaluating the outcome(s) of care (assessing the clinical results and impacts of and patient satisfaction with the care provided).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is, therefore, that aspects of the structure may be of lesser consequence.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to Donabedian's model, poor quality, in turn, results by not following what is defined as the appropriate or correct means of performing a task (poor process).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In Donabedian's model, however, there is a clear statement that ''we must begin … with the performance of physicians and other health care providers''.19”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The performance of these tasks occurs within a certain physical environment and under specific organizational conditions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5][6][7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to recognize that a healthcare work system often includes both healthcare providers and the patient being cared for.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that the SEIPS model explains how the design of a system can impact patients, employees, and the organization has its roots in the theory of healthy work organizations (HWOs).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The work system model also allows linkage of the various elements of the structure in the SPO model-that is, the organizational structure and material and human resources.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It proposes the work system model as an expansion of the structure by addressing elements of the work system model such as the physical environment, organizational culture and climate, error reporting and analysis, and work design that are so much a part of the current patient safety focus.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SEIPS model specifies feedback loops from processes to work system and from outcomes to work system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any healthcare work system can therefore involve multiple individuals such as healthcare providers and patients.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, it has been noted that physician professionalism also fosters a ''culture of blame'' when things go wrong because, if physicians are responsible for the entire medical process, then they are also exclusively to blame for poor quality care.26”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26] 26. Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA 1994;272:1851-7.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Professionals such as physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other licensed healthcare providers are bound by ethical mandates to serve in their clients' best interests.25”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] 25. ABIM Foundation. ACP-ASIM Foundation, European Federation of Internal Medicine. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:243-6. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, a care process can be considered as a series of steps or tasks performed by an individual or a team of individuals using various technologies and tools; the care process may involve various locations, therefore different physical environments.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A system redesign approach to changing physician behavior may not only be a more effective approach, but may be better accepted by physicians than traditional organizational efforts to improve quality using incentives.27”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] 27. Flynn EA, Barker KN, Pepper GA, et al. Comparison of methods for detecting medication errors in 36 hospitals and skilled-nursing facilities. Am J Health- System Pharm 2002;59:436-46. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Poor processes and outcomes can be triggers for system redesign: the need would then arise to identify negative work system elements that affect processes and the quality and safety of care, as well as employee and organizational outcomes.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The patient is also involved in patient care processes and is the ''recipient'' of good or bad outcomes of the care process.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“HWOs are organizations that have both good organizational outcomes and a healthy and safe workforce.31 32”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 31 32
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From this viewpoint, the patient is an ''input'' into the SEIPS model.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some negative elements in a work system that are hard to change may be overcome by focusing on some other positive elements.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Conversely, patient safety activities place greater emphasis on the system in which practitioners work and less on individual performance.21”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, et al. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA 1995;274:35-43. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the PICC line intervention may not decrease the nurse's workload but add to the workload as more and more patients require PICC line insertion rather than central venous catheter insertions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our model emphasizes the linkages between patient outcomes and employee/organizational outcomes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the SEIPS model the individual is at the centre of the work system.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These system redesigns support rather than conflict with the physician's role as a professional.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is that outcomes (both patient and employee/organizational, as proposed by the SEIPS model) are related and that they also are associated with structure aspects of the SPO model.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These feedback loops represent pathways to design or redesign the work system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The care process is also affected by multiple organizational characteristics such as the need for coordination and collaboration among the healthcare providers involved in the process.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Donabedian's model focuses on care process(es)-that is, how care is provided, delivered and managed.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Likewise, a bad outcome is associated with the poor performance of an individual (or a group of individuals).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743-8.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, a care process can be considered as a series of steps or tasks performed by an individual or a team of individuals using various technologies and tools; the care process may involve various locations, therefore different physical environments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, if the individual in the work system is a healthcare provider, tasks performed by the individual often involve the patient-for example, surgical tasks.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using the SEIPS model with the patient at the centre of the work system model can help to identify deficiencies in the healthcare system that can impair the patient's capacity to receive high quality safe care, and therefore contribute to the design of systems and processes for delivering patient centred care.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Involvement of physicians in the system redesign process is critical to both the success of the system and to physician acceptance of the new system.26”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26] 26. Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA 1994;272:1851-7.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SEIPS model expands the concept of process to include not only care processes but also other processes that support the care process such as maintenance, housekeeping and supply chain management.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“6thers have also emphasized the important relationship between patient outcomes and employee/organizational outcomes.15 33”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 15 33
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be used proactively to guide system design and hazard analysis, or reactively to guide patient or employee injury investigations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The design of work systems affects patient safety as well as employee and organizational outcomes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is descriptive, not prescriptive.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This can be considered as a limitation of the model because it does not provide specific guidance as to the critical elements; but it can also be a strength because the model is generic and adaptable to the particular context or situation.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The individual is at the centre of the work system and can be a healthcare provider, a healthcare team, or the patient.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it provides a framework on how to think about the different aspects of a work system, their interactions, and possible outcomes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The professional model assumes that providers have the ultimate authority to define and carry out the core tasks of providing medical care.42”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [42] 42. Freidson E. Profession of medicine: a study of the sociology of applied knowledge. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Recognizing potential resistance and obtaining strong support from key opinion leaders 43 is essential to effective implementation of the SEIPS model.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Flynn KE, Smith MA, Davis MK. From physician to consumer: the effectiveness of strategies to manage health care utilization. Med Care Res Rev 2002;59:455-81. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can also guide patient safety researchers toward developing research questions and understanding what variables to measure for a particular study.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the professional status of providers is linked so strongly to their autonomy, they may resist system efforts to manage the process of medical care as infringing on their autonomy and degrading their professional status.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This can be considered as a limitation of the model because it does not provide specific guidance as to the critical elements; but it can also be a strength because the model is generic and adaptable to the particular context or situation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have shown that the SEIPS model can be applied in many different ways to patient safety challenges.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is critical to understand how resistance to a systems approach may limit effective implementation of the SEIPS model in practice.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The design of work systems influences processes which, in turn, affect outcomes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SEIPS model is useful for providing a view of the whole system instead of focusing on only one aspect of the work system and treating that aspect in isolation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They also influence each other.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“Detecting and preventing EHR-related safety concerns is challenging because concerns are often multifaceted, involving not only potentially unsafe technological features of the EHR but also EHR user behaviors, organizational characteristics, and rules and regulations that guide EHR-related activities.”
From An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns (2014) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“In addition, conceptual frameworks or models have been developed to incorporate the breadth of technical and non-technical factors into the analysis of EHR safety and effectiveness.21 25 27 32 33”
From An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns (2014) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Another systematic review of the effect of EHR use on the quality of outpatient care came to a similarly negative conclusion.29”
From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [29]
Citations
Cites
Institute of Medicine (2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,390
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Baker, A. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192 · Cited by 10,779
To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System
Hendee, W. R. (2001) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1016/s1051-0443(01)70072-3 · Cited by 10,129
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2002) · Journal for Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2002.tb00463.x · Cited by 8,508
Evaluating the quality of medical care
DONABEDIAN, A. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x · Cited by 6,102
Donabedian, A. (1988) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.260.12.1743 · Cited by 5,895
Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care
Donabedian, A. (1966) · The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3348969 · Cited by 4,418
Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge.
Clausen, G. T., & Freidson, E. (1971) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2093843 · Cited by 2,047
Leape, L. L. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 1,961
The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment
Donabedian, A. (1980) · Health Administration Press eBooks · Cited by 1,749
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [8]8. Reason J. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
- [31]31. Sauter S, Lim SY, Murphy LR. Organizational health: a new paradigm for occupational stress at NIOSH (in Japanese). Japanese J Occup Mental Health 1996;4:248-54.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,100 of 1,789
Leon, C., Hogan, H., & Jani, Y. H. (2023) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015859 · Cited by 5
“24–27 It was created as a tool to support the in-depth understanding of health and care structures (termed work systems) and to identify barriers and facilitators of safety within them.”
Nadhrah, N., & Michell, V. A. (2014) · Advances in healthcare information systems and administration book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4546-2.ch006 · Cited by 4
Wolf, L., Gorman, K., Clark, J., et al. (2022) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001042 · Cited by 4
Woodward, M., Ansari, A., Draycott, T. J., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044310 · Cited by 4
Dilliard, R., Hagemeier, N. E., Ratliff, B., et al. (2021) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100042 · Cited by 4
“A model such as the SEIPS model could facilitate communication and solutions that improve patient safety and employee and organizational outcomes.(29) While mechanisms exist to report medication-related errors (e.”
MethodCarter, H., Hanks, S., & Gale, T. C. E. (2020) · Advances in Simulation · doi:10.1186/s41077-020-00136-y · Cited by 4
Xames, M. D., & Topcu, T. G. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Digital Twins and Parallel Intelligence (DTPI) · doi:10.1109/dtpi59677.2023.10365449 · Cited by 6
“While we don’t intend to provide an exhaustive list here, the necessary data could be categorized through the systems engineering initiative for patient safety (SEIPS) model [27].”
Schommer, J. C., Garza, O., Taitel, M. S., et al. (2020) · Pharmacy · doi:10.3390/pharmacy8030125 · Cited by 4
Adapting to the Cyber-Driven Workforce
Burton, S. L., Burrell, D. N., & Nobles, C. (2023) · Advances in human resources management and organizational development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-8691-7.ch009 · Cited by 4
Marcilly, R., Lesselroth, B., Guerlinger, S., Pigot, A., Schiro, J., & Sylvia Pelayo, A. (2023) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08277-2 · Cited by 4
Khayal, I. S. (2020) · 2020 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) · doi:10.1109/syscon47679.2020.9275910 · Cited by 4
“A large body of literature summarizes applications in safety [3], [4], resource management [5], capacity planning [6], [7], and scheduling of various types including for outpatients [8]–[11], clinicians [12]–[14], operating room [15]–[17], work flow processes [18]–[21] and patient-flows [22].”
BackgroundImproving Clinical Performance by Analyzing Surgical Skills and Operative Errors
Forsyth, K. L., D’Angelo, A.-L. D., Cohen, E. M., & Pugh, C. M. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44010-1_32 · Cited by 4
Warden, T., Oswald, F. L., Roth, E. M., Argall, B., Barry, B. A., Carayon, P., Czaja, S. J., & Ratwani, R. M. (2020) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181320641515 · Cited by 4
“AI technologies are only one element of a larger sociotechnical (work) system that needs to be designed to fit with other system elements (Carayon et al., 2006; Carayon et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSelf-citationA Human Factors approach to medication administration in nursing homes
Odberg, K. R. (2020) · University of Stavanger eBooks · doi:10.31265/usps.48 · Cited by 4
Assessment of Modern Health Care Opportunities in Management of Medical Care Safety
Voskanyan, Y., Shikina, I. B., Kidalov, F., & Рудольфович, Д. Д. (2019) · Acta Scientific Medical Sciences · doi:10.31080/asms.2019.03.0438 · Cited by 4
Hughes, A. M., Doos, D., Ahmed, R. A., Pham, T. N. D., & Barach, P. R. (2022) · Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness · doi:10.1017/dmp.2022.209 · Cited by 4
Medication reconciliation in ambulatory care: A work in progress
Schnipper, J. L., & Labonville, S. A. (2016) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp160672 · Cited by 4
The Quality, Implementation, and Evaluation Model
Talsma, A., McLaughlin, M., Bathish, M. A., Sirihorachai, R., & Kuttner, R. (2014) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/0193945914537121 · Cited by 4
“The essence of this component is to inform and educate patients and family members about specific activities in support of the quality goals (Carayon et al., 2006; Zineldin, 2006).”
BackgroundElkefi, S., & Asan, O. (2024) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/53053 · Cited by 5
“The last model that inspired our framework is the SEIPS [21].”
Adopting a Sociotechnical Systems Perspective to Examine the Challenge of WRMSDs in Sonography
Sommerich, C. M. (2021) · Journal of diagnostic medical sonography · doi:10.1177/87564793211054054 · Cited by 4
Donati, D., Tartaglini, D., & Muzio, M. D. (2018) · Scenario - Il Nursing nella sopravvivenza · doi:10.4081/scenario.2015.74 · Cited by 4
Phipps, D. L., Blakeman, T., Morris, R., et al. (2019) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2019.1620968 · Cited by 4
“The system engineering model of healthcare proposed by Carayon and colleagues (Carayon et al. 2006; Holden et al. 2013) identifies the key role of human factors in the effectiveness of healthcare work systems.”
MethodImproving Quality and Safety Through Use of Secondary Data: Methods Case Study
Goode, V. M., Crego, N., Cary, M. P., Thornlow, D. K., & Merwin, E. (2016) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/0193945916672449 · Cited by 4
“Study variables were organized into one of the three model components: (a) work system, (b) process, and (c) outcomes and are listed in Table 4 (Carayon et al., 2006).”
MethodA Dynamic System Model for Personalized Healthcare Delivery and Managed Individual Health Outcomes
Khayal, I. S., & Farid, A. M. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3118010 · Cited by 4
“Consequently, a large body of healthcare literature summarizes safety [2], [3], resource management [4], capacity planning [5], [6], and scheduling of various types including for outpatients [7]–[10], clinicians [11]–[13], operating room [14]–[16], work flow processes [17]–[20], and patient-flows [21].”
BackgroundAssessing Patient Trust in Automation in Health Care Systems: Within-Subjects Experimental Study
Nare, M. T., & Jurewicz, K. A. (2023) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/48584 · Cited by 3
Human Factors Engineering in Infection Prevention & Control: Opportunities, Examples, and the Future
Gürses, A. P., Perry, S. J., Pennathur, P., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181322661004 · Cited by 3
“Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model.”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citationSituation Awareness to Support Decision-Making among Emergency Care Practitioners
Hamid, H. S. A., Waterson, P. E., & Hignett, S. M. (2009) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/ndm2009.55 · Cited by 3
“The observation was structured around The System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model of patient safety (Carayon et al. 2006). The SEIP model was chosen to aid the development of a domain-specific framework. Thus, during the observation, notes were made regarding machines and equipments, task proced…”
MethodAli, H. B., & Li, H. (2019) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.2.13461/v1 · Cited by 3
“All relevant aspects of observations were categorized into groups and subgroups using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model of work system and patient safety as a guide (22).”
Using Qualitative Measures to Improve Quality in Radiation Oncology
Harrison, A. S., Yu, Y. P., Dicker, A. P., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Medical Quality · doi:10.1177/1062860612461826 · Cited by 3
Automated search methods for identifying wrong patient order entry—a scoping review
Garrod, M., Fox, A., & Rutter, P. M. (2023) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad057 · Cited by 3
“Thematic analysis was performed using the themes identified by Abraham et al(26) These were developed using a deductive coding and agreement approach and based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) risk factors; technological, cognitive, social, environmental, and organizational.(47) These r…”
MethodCarayon, P., Gürses, A. P., Holden, R. J., King, B., Perry, S. J., Waterson, P. E., & Wetterneck, T. B. (2014) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931214581321 · Cited by 3
“(Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) model (Carayon et al., 2006; 2014), in healthcare research and practice.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationHamilton, D. K. (2017) · Cited by 3
Kim, N. (2020) · Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration · doi:10.11111/jkana.2020.26.5.542 · Cited by 3
Weiler, D. T., Lingg, A. J., Wilkins, D. M., Militello, L. G., & Werner, N. E. (2022) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103689 · Cited by 3
The Unintended Consequences of the Technology in Clinical Settings
Franklin, A. (2015) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17272-9_11 · Cited by 4
Obarcanin, E., Aslani, P., Ho, A. H. Y., et al. (2024) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100469 · Cited by 3
Time constraints and workload in the computed tomography department
Yoganathan, N., dos Reis, C. S., & Serranheira, F. (2024) · Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101799 · Cited by 3
Graafsma, J., Klopotowska, J. E., Derijks, H. J., van de Garde, E. M. W., Hoge, R. H. L., Kruip, M. J. H. A., Meijer, K., Karapinar‐Çarkit, F., & van den Bemt, P. M. L. A. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306033 · Cited by 3
Cohen, T., Kanji, F. F., Wang, A. S., Seferian, E. G., Sax, H. C., & Gewertz, B. L. (2023) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.05.013 · Cited by 3
Voskanyan, Y., Shikina, I. B., Kidalov, F., & Andreeva, O. (2020) · doi:10.37871/ajeccm.id14 · Cited by 3
“A new safety culture, as part of the corporate culture, implies a change in the key paradigm and is based on the main assumption that harm caused in the process of medical care provision is not related to the fi nal care providers, but to a multitude of systematic threats, without management of which it is impossible…”
BackgroundEnhancing Patient Safety in Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Health Care: The Role of Human Factors
Hose, B., Handley, J. L., Biro, J., Krevat, S. A., & Ratwani, R. M. (2025) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001444 · Cited by 3
Santos, R. (2020) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaa087 · Cited by 3
Schlesinger, J. J., Burdick, K. J., Baum, S. H., Bellomy, M. L., Mueller, D. A., MacDonald, A., Chern, A., Chrouser, K. L., & Burger, C. (2018) · Anesthesiology Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.anclin.2017.10.008 · Cited by 5
Paediatric surgery and COVID-19: urgent lessons to be learned
Turner, A., Albolino, S., & Morabito, A. (2020) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaa149 · Cited by 3
“The presented framework will be structured around the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model [1], following the HFE approach that allows for a rational organization of the presented knowledge acquired from experience on the field, for assessment and treatment in paediatric surgery.”
MethodPerspectivas y retos en factores humanos e ingeniería de sistemas en ambientes médicos complejos
Benavides, C. O. (2016) · Acta Colombiana de Cuidado Intensivo · doi:10.1016/j.acci.2016.07.006 · Cited by 3
Safety of the Antibiotic Medication Use Process in the Intensive Care Unit
Paris, B. L., Carayon, P., Wetterneck, T. B., et al. (2008) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120805201935 · Cited by 3
“Improvement efforts must focus on the entire work system (Carayon et al, 2006), and understanding the various contributing factors in different environments will assist in eliminating barriers to providing safe, timely, effective care.”
BackgroundSelf-citationGreen, N., Tappin, D., & Bentley, T. A. (2025) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104641 · Cited by 3
Samost, A., Bernstein, S., Thomas, A. T., Piersa, A. P., Hawkins, J. E., & Pian-Smith, M. C. M. (2023) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000006751 · Cited by 3
“17 This helped guide study participants to consider the entire system around intraoperative handoffs including structures, processes, and outcomes.”
HTO - A Concept of Humans, Technology and Organisation in Interaction
Berglund, M., Karltun, A., Eklund, J. A. E., & Karltun, J. (2020) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 3
Montague, E. N. H., Bungum, M., Шерман, Л. А., et al. (2021) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103495 · Cited by 3
Using MedSMA℞T Families for Opioid Safety Education: Emergency Department Staff Perspective
Nadi, S., Hurst, I. A., & Abraham, O. (2025) · Pediatrics Open Science · doi:10.1542/pedsos.2024-000172 · Cited by 4
Eisawi, A., Aung, M., & Canelo, R. (2019) · Surgical Innovation · doi:10.1177/1553350619870030 · Cited by 3
Building Community Pharmacy Work System Capacity for Medication Therapy Management
Schommer, J. C., Goncharuk, K., Kjos, A. L., Worley, M. M., & Owen, J. A. (2012) · INNOVATIONS in pharmacy · doi:10.24926/iip.v3i3.267 · Cited by 3
“They applied the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to study pharmacy work systems [30].”
MethodShin, G. W., Bahn, S., Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2021) · Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries · doi:10.1002/hfm.20900 · Cited by 3
“…the layout of facilities OXV EMR_Place Problems due to inappropriate location of EMR PC OXV EMR_Light Problems due to improper lighting OXV Carayon et al. (2006), Chaudhury et al. (2009), Rivera and Karsh (2008), and Zimring et al. (2004) EMR_Phone Problems due to incoming calls and…”
BackgroundMethodPatient Safety and Health Information Technology
Yang, Y., Pitts, S. I., Chen, A. R., et al. (2022) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07912-2_13 · Cited by 3
Midolo, L., Bartoli, D., Petrosino, F., Figura, M., Muzio, M. D., Vellone, E., Alvaro, R., Trotta, F., & Pucciarelli, G. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18031346 · Cited by 4
Minimizing the impact of interruptions in a pediatric retail pharmacy
Craig, C. M., Patzer, B. S., & Morris, N. L. (2018) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931218621110 · Cited by 3
“The systems level analysis was explored through the lens of the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework (SEIPS; Carayon et al., 2006; Holden et al., 2013), which describes the components (i.e., person, organization, technologies, tasks, and environment), heath care processes,…”
MethodSalwei, M. E., Hoonakker, P., Pulia, M. S., Wiegmann, D. A., Patterson, B. W., & Carayon, P. (2023) · Human Factors in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hfh.2023.100055 · Cited by 3
Self-citationInnovative Macroergonomic Approaches: Responsibilities, Opportunities, and Challenges
Scheer, E. R., Valdez, R. S., Scheer, E. R., Valdez, R. S., Waterson, P. E., Robertson, M. M., Kleiner, B. M., Ramly, E., & Rogers, C. C. (2022) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181322661035 · Cited by 3
“Work systems models are conventionally used to decompose complex sociotechnical systems and highlight interactions between and among system components (Carayon et al., 2006; Valdez et al., 2015).”
BackgroundKrecko, L. K., Quamme, S. R. P., Carnahan, S., Steege, L. M. B., Tipple, S. M., Bavery, L., Greenberg, C. C., & Jung, H. S. (2022) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2022.05.034 · Cited by 3
The Evolution of Neonatal Patient Safety
Yamada, N. K., & Halamek, L. P. (2023) · Clinics in Perinatology · doi:10.1016/j.clp.2023.01.005 · Cited by 3
A holistic outcome-based approach to co-create healthcare systems.
Landa-Avila, C., Escobar-Tello, C., Jun, G. T., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2020.127 · Cited by 3
“Consequently, they appeal for the development of supportive toolkits to implement the model in healthcare (Carayon et al., 2006; Holden et al., 2013).”
BackgroundBYOD use and perception among hospital clinicians – A qualitative study
Wani, T. A., Mendoza, A., & Gray, K. M. (2024) · Ethics Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101031 · Cited by 3
Cognitive Behavior and Clinical Workflows
Horsky, J. (2019) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_2 · Cited by 3
Adjusting for Patient Context in Inpatient Breastfeeding Education: A Human Factors Perspective
Papautsky, E. L. (2019) · Journal of Midwifery & Women s Health · doi:10.1111/jmwh.13041 · Cited by 3
Cohen, T., Kanji, F. F., Zamudio, J., Breese, C., Avenido, R., Yoshizawa, C., Bartkowicz, S., Catchpole, K. C., & Anger, J. T. (2024) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001279 · Cited by 3
Glatkauskas, M., Syversen, M. O., Lea, M., Scott, M., Svensberg, K., Denstad, B. G., Wibe, T., & Mathiesen, L. (2025) · Human Factors in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hfh.2025.100100 · Cited by 3
“In SEIPS, researchers analyze work processes which are shaped by work system elements corresponding to persons, tools, technologies, tasks, organizational, physical, and external environment elements (Carayon et al., 2006; Holden et al., 2013).”
Trygg og sikker bruk av velferdsteknologi i hjemmebaserthelse- og omsorgstjeneste
Johannessen, T. B., Holm, A. L., & Storm, M. (2019) · Tidsskrift for omsorgsforskning · doi:10.18261/issn.2387-5984-2019-03-07 · Cited by 8
Design Approaches for Developing Quality Checklists in Healthcare Organizations: A Scoping ReviewPreprint
Kwong, E. C., Cole, A. C., Sippo, D. A., Yu, F., Adapa, K., Shea, C. M., Moore, C., Das, S. K., & Mazur, L. M. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.09.27.24314468 · Cited by 3
Scanlon, M. C. (2014) · Pediatric Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-6362-6_10 · Cited by 3
Macroergonomic Work Systems' Design Factors and Elements
Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Maldonado-Macías, A. A., & Romero-González, J. (2016) · Advances in logistics, operations, and management science book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0130-5.ch007 · Cited by 3
Angulo, D. E. R., Bajaña-Mendoza, M. V., & Fajardo-Vargas, J. E. (2026) · Revista Científica Ciencia y Método · doi:10.55813/gaea/rcym/v4/n2/201 · Cited by 3
The Unintended Consequences of the Technology in Clinical Settings
Franklin, A., & Thayer, J. G. (2024) · Cognitive informatics in biomedicine and healthcare · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-69947-4_15 · Cited by 3
Analytical Methods to Support Risk Identification and Analysis in Healthcare Systems
Vellojin, C., & Nadime, L. (2011) · Cited by 3
Lin, I. D., Shotts, M. B., Al-Hader, A. A., Jones, K. L., Holden, R. J., Mueller, E. L., Macik, M. R., Rojas, M. R., & Abebe, E. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274963 · Cited by 3
Sadeghi, M., Khanade, K., Sasangohar, F., et al. (2018) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931218621308 · Cited by 3
“The framework of the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model (Carayon et al., 2006) has been used to analyze complex dependent constructs in nursing (Barker Steege & Rainbow, 2017).”
MethodCriteria for recommendations after perioperative sentinel events
Bos, K., Dongelmans, D. A., Groeneweg, J., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open Quality · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001493 · Cited by 3
Vincent, C., & BLANDFORD, A. E. (2017) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.04.012 · Cited by 3
“…environment) helps provide a safer and more productive workplace (Smith and Carayon, 1989) and frameworks such as SEIPS (the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) show the benefit of such an approach (Carayon, 2009; Carayon et al., 2006; Carayon and Smith, 2000; Carayon et al., 2014).”
BackgroundMarcilly, R., Schiro, J., Génin, M., Somers, S., Migaud, M.-C., Mabile, F., Sylvia Pelayo, A., Zotto, M. D., & Rochat, J. (2024) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104266 · Cited by 5
Chetcuti, S., & Bhowmick, K. (2018) · BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1136/bmjstel-2018-000348 · Cited by 3
Super, I., Wang, B., Zhang, L., & Asan, O. (2025) · Human Factors in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hfh.2025.100097 · Cited by 4
Høyland, S. A., Schuchert, A., & Mamen, A. (2022) · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs · doi:10.1177/14550725221099702 · Cited by 3
“…(intervention processes) at the continuing care establishment, aimed at the overall goal of achieving a substance-free and normalised everyday life or situation (health outcomes) (Carayon et al., 2015; Carayon et al., 2006; Carayon et al., 2009; Carayon et al., 2014; Karltun et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodRealyvásquez-Vargas, A., Maldonado-Macías, A. A., García-Alcaráz, J. L., & Blanco‐Fernández, J. (2018) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1551422 · Cited by 3
“Even though the model of Carayon et al. (2006) was initially constructed for health care systems design in order to contribute to the safety of patients, its adaptation for and application in manufacturing systems represents an area of opportunity, since it can be useful as a reference framework in…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNot just for surgeons: A qualitative exploration of the surgical consent process
Gardiner, T. M., Latimer, S. L., Hewitt, J. E., et al. (2023) · Collegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing Australia · doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2023.10.001 · Cited by 3
Assessment of standardization in surgical skin preparation: does a compliance-culture exist?
El‐Othmani, M. M., Mahmood, B., Pearson, L., et al. (2016) · International Surgery Journal · doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20160208 · Cited by 3
Hoonakker, P., Cartmill, R. S., Carayon, P., & Walker, J. M. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2797-0.ch010 · Cited by 3
Self-citationHolden, R. J., Scanlon, M. C., Brown, R., & Karsh, B. (2008) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120805201201 · Cited by 3
“When applied to the healthcare setting, the above claim is isomorphic in form to the structure-process-outcome model of Donabedian (1988), to the SEIPS model of healthcare (Carayon et al., 2006), and to the human factors performance model of patient safety (Karsh, Holden, et al., 2006).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation‘Theory and practice’: Why does it matter?
Yardley, S. J. (2022) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/02692163221144644 · Cited by 3
Patient Safety Culture – Setting the Scene
Waterson, P. E. (2018) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315599717-1 · Cited by 3
Observing and Categorising Process Deviations in Orthopaedic Surgery
Morgan, L. J., Pickering, S., Catchpole, K., et al. (2011) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181311551142 · Cited by 3
“The categories are broadly based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model (Carayon et al. 2006).”
Method“Teamwork in hospitals”: A quasi-experimental study protocol applying a Human Factors approach
Ballangrud, R., & Hall-Lod, M. L. (2017) · http://isrctn.com/ · doi:10.1186/isrctn13997367 · Cited by 4
Developing a Safety Case for Electronic Prescribing
Yan, J., Lawton, T., Sean, W., & Habli, I. (2019) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti190299 · Cited by 3
“Data analysis : A combination of Software Hazard Analysis and Resolution in Design (SHARD) [13] and Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) [14] were used to stimulate the indentification of hazards, their causes and consequences, and the controls associated with the hazards.”
MethodClift, J., Dakin, F., Khan, A., Woodier, N., Greenhalgh, T., & Payne, R. E. (2026) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2026-020139 · Cited by 2
“14 23 This also aligns with Safety II and resilience engineering approaches, which focus on how safety is created in everyday work, 11 going beyond simplistic ‘let’s create another mandatory training module’ approaches.”
Khanal, V., Saurman, E., Russell, D., et al. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/68892 · Cited by 3
“The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework will be used to identify system factors that influence how care is delivered in digitally enabled models of care and lead to better outcomes for patients and remote health service staff [46].”
Wiley, K., & Davies, J. M. (2021) · ERA: Education and Research Archive (University of Alberta) · doi:10.7939/r3-h2r4-d534 · Cited by 3
Ruppel, H., Luo, B. T., Won, J. C., et al. (2025) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001403 · Cited by 3
“After the retreat, we also used Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) activities to ground our analysis in systems thinking, 14 including a People, Environments, Tools and Tasks (PETT) scan and development of a con fi gural diagram.”
Improving Quality and Safety through Human Factors Collaborations with Healthcare
Wetterneck, T. B., Kelly, M. M., Carayon, P., et al. (2014) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931214581169 · Cited by 3
“Improving Quality and Safety through Human Factors Collaborations with Healthcare: The System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety Panel organizer: Tosha Wetterneck, MD, MS, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health (UWSMPH), Department of Industrial and Systems Engineer…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationA Markov chain approach to study flow disruptions on surgery in emergency care
Shao, X., Li, J., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2013) · 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) · doi:10.1109/coase.2013.6654059 · Cited by 3
Healthcare Systems Design At a Crossroads
Perry, S. J., Mosher, H. J., Persoon, T. J., Bass, E. J., Fairbanks, R. J. T., & Pennathur, P. R. (2013) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213571155 · Cited by 3
“…the methodologies from the discipline of human factors and ergonomics have contributed to improved patient safety and new methods continue to be developed (Bolton & Bass, 2010, in press; Bolton, Bass & Siminiceanu, 2008, 2013; Bolton, Bass & Siminiceanu, 2012; Carayon et al., 2006; Carayon, 2007).”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- Authors
- Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carayon, P
- ORCID
- Venue
- Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- suppl 1
- Pages
- i50-i58
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- PMC
- PMC2464868
- OpenAlex
- W2163767758
- Semantic Scholar
- d1341354adecf3074cdce8d706ccfec017ac370f
- Cited by
- 1,795
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 199 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 122 · 2022: 119 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 132 · 2019: 118 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 50
- FWCI
- 4.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (#P20 HS11561-01, P20 HS011561)
- Topics
- 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
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Ergonomics and Human Factors
- Keywords
- work system design, patient safety, SEIPS model, health care system, outpatient surgery, safety culture
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Ergonomics, Models, Theoretical, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Surgicenters, Systems Analysis, Task Performance and Analysis, United States, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Safety Management, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
