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 1,301–1,400 of 1,789
Ambulatory Computerized Provider Order Entry (ACPOE or E-Prescribing)
Johnson, K. B., & Weigle, C. G. M. (2009) · Computers in health care · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76446-7_19 · Cited by 1
Systemic approach to the clinical risks management in a healthcare organization
Kleymenova, E. B., Matrosova, E., Yashina, L. P., Игоревич, Н. Г., & Gerasimova, N. (2022) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.11.082 · Cited by 1
Human factors in emergency care
Ratwani, R. M., Hettinger, A. Z., & Fairbanks, R. J. T. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118779750.ch4 · Cited by 1
Ergonomics in Hospital: Prevention of Interruptions and Safety in Drug Administration
Frangioni, G., Biermann, K. P., Caposciutti, B., et al. (2018) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96098-2_31 · Cited by 1
Macroergonomics in Healthcare: Principles, Progress, and Prospects
Holden, R. J., Montague, E. N. H., Carayon, P., Hoonakker, P., Waterson, P. E., Wetterneck, T. B., Gürses, A. P., & Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J. (2012) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181312561268 · Cited by 1
“Shekelle and colleagues (2010; 2011) focused on four contextual variables; but macroergonomics researchers and practitioners would advocate a broader systems approach to understanding the context of patient safety (Carayon et al., 2006).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationJung, S., & Park, J. K. (2026) · Nursing and Health Sciences · doi:10.1111/nhs.70383 · Cited by 1
“These findings support the SEIPS model's premise that safety outcomes result from interactions between work system factors and individual competencies (Carayon et al. 2006; Hwang et al. 2021).”
Organizational Learning in a Large-scale Complex Health IT Project
Hundt, A. S., Carayon, P., Hoonakker, P., et al. (2012) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181312561270 · Cited by 1
“Because a change in technology introduces change to the work system (Carayon & Smith, 2000; Smith & Carayon, 2001), health IT implementations represent significant disruptions to the system and can adversely affect patient safety (Carayon et al., 2003; Carayon et al., 2006).”
BackgroundSelf-citationTischendorf, J. S., Knobloch, M. J., Musuuza, J., & Safdar, N. (2019) · Journal for Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1097/jhq.0000000000000209 · Cited by 1
Digital patient safety interventions in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Tsang, J. Y., Planner, C., Low, C.-N., Stewart, S., Morris, C., Wong, B., Delitheos, S. M., Kulangara, G., Yu, L. K. D., Babu, A. B. S., et al. (2026) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-026-05048-8 · Cited by 1
“There is increasing recognition that digital interventions operate within complex healthcare systems, where outcomes are shaped by interactions among technology, people, workflows, organizations, and the broader care environment [109].”
Skurnak, K., Nadri, C., Zoaktafi, M., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813251361895 · Cited by 1
“Interviewers used an interview guide designed to explore how breast surgeons currently perform tumor resections, structured around the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model (Carayon et al., 2006, 2014, 2020), which is available at hfss.ise.illinois.edu/ tools/.”
Recommendations for Improving Ergonomics in Cleft Palate and Lip Surgery: A Scoping Review
Morel, S. B. A., ElAbd, R., ElAbd, Y., et al. (2025) · Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1177/22925503251386782 · Cited by 1
Koppel, R., & Kreda, D. (2009) · Cited by 1
Prospective, knowledge based clinical risk analysis: The OPT-model
Schräder, T., Loewe, K., Pelchen, L., et al. (2015) · doi:10.1109/intelcis.2015.7397204 · Cited by 1
“Influenced by the methods of risk analysis used in aviation technology a Human Factors Classification Framework was developed [5] and integrated in SEIPS (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) [6], [7].”
MethodTewani, P. K., Jefferies, C. M., Reynolds, M. E., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857923121048 · Cited by 1
“…surgical instrument trays from storage through point of care through sterile processing (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS; Carayon et al., 2006) Journey Map (Holden & Carayon, 2021; c.f., Segarra et al., 2023, submitted)), ride-alongs throughout inter-facility surgical…”
MethodTowards a Deeper Understanding of Conceptual Models that Incorporate Patient Safety
Arnold, T., & Fuller, H. J. A. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20451-8_1 · Cited by 1
Preventive measures for health workers exposed to COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)
Astete, J., Burgos-Flores, M. A., & Mayma-Aguirre, K. J. (2022) · Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho · doi:10.47626/1679-4435-2022-781 · Cited by 1
Kuitunen, S. K., Laakkonen, L., Janhunen, K., Kvarnström, K., & Lindén-Lahti, C. (2025) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001381 · Cited by 3
Davy, J., Todd, A. I., Dobson, R., Quazi, T., Ndlovu, P., & Alfers, L. (2021) · African Sun Media eBooks · doi:10.52779/9781991201058/12 · Cited by 1
Brick, R. S., Hekman, D. J., Werner, N. E., Rodakowski, J. L., Cadmus‐Bertram, L., & Fields, B. (2023) · PEC Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100192 · Cited by 1
“health system), clinician, and patient outcomes [18].”
Teamwork Communication in Healthcare: An Instrument (Questionnaire) Validation Process
Matar, W., & Aldwair, M. (2021) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-70713-2_22 · Cited by 1
Let us to the TWISST; Plan, Simulate, Study and Act
Colman, N., & Hebbar, K. (2023) · Pediatric Quality and Safety · doi:10.1097/pq9.0000000000000664 · Cited by 1
“4,19 FMEA risk stratifies the LSTs identified during debriefing.”
Cohen, T., Nuckols, T. K., Berdahl, C. T., Seferian, E. G., McCleskey, S. G., Henreid, A. J., Leang, D. W., Lupera, M. A., & Coleman, B. L. (2025) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2025.01.002 · Cited by 5
Signal processing, human factors, and modelling to support bedside care in the intensive care unit
Görges, M. (2012) · J. Willard Marriott Library · doi:10.26053/0h-vrmv-3r00 · Cited by 1
Stratifying Risk of Nonadherence in Lingual Strengthening Dysphagia Rehabilitation
Vitale, K., Powell, W. R., Krekeler, B. N., Yee, J. P., & Rogus‐Pulia, N. M. (2023) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2023_ajslp-22-00338 · Cited by 1
Kouhnavard, B., Mazloumi, A., & Shamsipour, M. (2024) · Irān kūdah. · doi:10.61186/ioh.20.2.14 · Cited by 1
Is It Important to Use the Macroergonomic Approach to the Safety Culture Maturity Model?
Mulyasari, W., Ciptomulyono, U., & Sudiarno, A. (2024) · Lecture notes in mechanical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-6492-1_19 · Cited by 1
Threats to performing high-risk resident care activities in nursing homes: A work system analysis
Mumma, J. M., Gannon, P. R., Regina, R., et al. (2025) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104536 · Cited by 1
Mansour, L. A., Sushereba, C., Miguel, C. S., et al. (2024) · Simulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000839 · Cited by 1
Oncology Related Patient Safety Events
Wynn, R. M., Fong, A., Weldon, D. L. M., Ratwani, R. M., & Miller, K. (2018) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931218621277 · Cited by 1
“When double checks are evaluated in the context of the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model (P Carayon et al., 2006; Pascale Carayon et al., 2014; Holden et al., 2013)problems can be identified within many components of the sociotechnical work system.”
MethodCai, C. Y., Greyson, S., Keita, M., Sharma, R., Keller, S. C., Gürses, A. P., Hohl, D., Carl, K., Samus, Q. M., & Arbaje, A. I. (2025) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf277 · Cited by 1
Self-citationPreparing for the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act
SOCKOLOW, P. S., & Yang, Y. (2021) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000782 · Cited by 1
“15,16 These researchers seek to design technologies to meet the capabilities, limitations, and needs of users, instead of expecting users to adapt to the technology.”
BackgroundIntegrating remote blood pressure monitoring into NHS primary care: a human factors perspective
Micocci, M., Butt, O., Zhou, S., El-Osta, A., Buckle, P., & Hanna, G. B. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1697787 · Cited by 1
“Interview questions addressed key components of the work system—tasks, environments, regulatory factors, and personnel (21, 22) as well as existing bottlenecks, mitigation strategies, and anticipated changes following implementation.”
Detection and Management of Clinical Deterioration in a Virtual Hospital: A Work System AnalysisPreprint
Bamgboje‐Ayodele, A., Boscolo, A., Newton, N., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5150511 · Cited by 1
Hobbs, M. A. (2016) · TigerPrints (Clemson University) · Cited by 1
Bouchard, B., Bouchard, K., Gaboury, S., & Bouzouane, A. (2017) · Advances in healthcare information systems and administration book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5222-2.ch005 · Cited by 1
Association of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Employment Status Change for Practicing Pharmacists
Mott, D. A., Arya, V. A., Bakken, B. K., et al. (2024) · Journal of the American Pharmacists Association · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2024.102187 · Cited by 1
Ries, M., von der Forst, M., Schäfer, H., Bikowski, K., Franzen, K. F., Geoerg, P., Weykamp, F., Popp, E., & Küllenberg, J. K. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1880835 · Cited by 2
“This interpretation is consistent with both classical sociotechnical systems theory and the SEIPS framework, which emphasize that performance and safety arise from the interaction of social and technical system components rather than from individual actors alone (62, 63).”
Elsayed, N. (2026) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106419 · Cited by 3
Vallejo, U. C., González, G. F. L., García, V. M. D. P., et al. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-23 · Cited by 1
Stewart, L. K., Bille, D., Fields, B., Kemper, L. M., Pappa, C., Orman, E. S., Boustani, M. A., Ramly, E., Hybarger, A. C., Watters, A., et al. (2025) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2025.01.005 · Cited by 1
The bionomic approach to patient safety and its application in gynaecological surgery
Edozien, L. C. (2013) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.04.008 · Cited by 1
Association of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Employment Status Change for Practicing Pharmacists
Mott, D. A., Arya, V. A., Bakken, B. K., et al. (2024) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.1016/j.ajpe.2024.100689 · Cited by 1
A Biomedical Informatics Perspective on Human Factors:
Meyer, R., & Factors, S. E. F. T. I. Y. S. O. H. (2012) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1639432 · Cited by 1
“HIS are operated by human beings who are by nature not that unpredictable [19, 20] but they interact in complex environments/organizations with complex tools to perform complex tasks.”
BackgroundEvaluating Responsivity and Resilience in Trust in Healthcare Systems: A Scoping Literature Review
Nare, M. T., & Jurewicz, K. A. (2023) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/21695067231192208 · Cited by 1
“Tools and technology are one of the five main interconnected work factors (i.e., People, Tasks, Tools and Technology, Environment, and Organization), identified in the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS; Carayon et al., 2006).”
BackgroundBeyond the ‘Go-Live’: why context matters in EHR implementations
Chih, M., Warren, J. L., Iqbal, U., et al. (2026) · BMJ Health & Care Informatics · doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2025-101977 · Cited by 1
Hignett, S. M., Wolf, L., & Taylor, E. (2016) · Human factors and ergonomics · doi:10.1201/9781315373744-29 · Cited by 1
Performance improvement in surgery
Alban, R. F., Anania, E. C., Cohen, T., Fabri, P. J., Gewertz, B. L., Jain, M., Jopling, J. K., Maggio, P. M., Sánchez, J. A., & Sax, H. C. (2019) · Current Problems in Surgery · doi:10.1067/j.cpsurg.2019.02.003 · Cited by 2
Or, C. K., Liu, K., & Wang, H. (2018) · Advances in healthcare information systems and administration book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5460-8.ch018 · Cited by 1
Using the SEIPS Model to Assess a Maternal Hemorrhage Risk Alert Tool
Hale-Lopez, K. L., Verma, N., Chakravarthy, S., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813241268737 · Cited by 1
“The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model describes the interacting work system elements that influence care processes (Carayon et al., 2006, 2020).”
Roche, N., Darzins, S. W., Oakman, J., & Stuckey, R. (2025) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104563 · Cited by 2
Loganathar, P., Toia, G. V., Lubner, M. G., & Lee, M. H. (2025) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.050 · Cited by 2
de México, U. N. A., Meza-Galindo, M. F., Ensaldo‐Carrasco, E., de Guadalajara, U., Aceves‐González, C., & de Guadalajara, U. (2024) · Revista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública · doi:10.17533/udea.rfnsp.e355794 · Cited by 1
“El seips reconoce que aunque la atención proporcio-nada por cada profesional de la salud es crucial, por sí sola no garantiza la calidad de la atención sanitaria [9].”
InfluentialHuman Factors in Healthcare: Theoretical Underpinnings for Simulation in Interprofessional Education
Hughes, A. M. (2020) · Comprehensive healthcare simulation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28845-7_3 · Cited by 1
Missed nursing care in the operating room: a qualitative analysis of nurses’ perspectives
Ge, W. J., Zhu, T., Li, M., Zhu, X., & Wang, H. N. (2026) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-026-04672-2 · Cited by 5
“For example, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model emphasizes that patient safety outcomes emerge from interactions among people, tasks, tools, organization, and environment [11].”
Tabibzadeh, M., & Shivakumar, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/21695067231193679 · Cited by 1
“The first version of this framework was published in 2006 by Carayon and colleagues (Carayon et al., 2006).”
MethodA review of the sterile processing department’s reprocessing of surgical instruments
Fredendall, L. D., Islam, S. R., Taaffe, K., Hegde, S., Rayo, M. F., Foster, S., Hionis, J., Balkin, E. M., Segarra, G. C., & Catchpole, K. C. (2025) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaf140 · Cited by 1
Sociotechnical Issues of Tele-ICU Technology
Hoonakker, P., McGuire, K., & Carayon, P. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-587-2.ch701 · Cited by 1
Self-citationUsing patient and carer perspectives to improve medication safety at transitions of care
Garfield, S., Etkind, M., & Franklin, B. D. (2023) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016801 · Cited by 1
Shaw, S. M., Shaw, S. B., & Janes, G. (2026) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.70583 · Cited by 6
A Review of Ergonomics and Simulation Modeling in Healthcare Delivery System
Anjomshoae, A., Hassan, A., & Rani, M. R. A. (2013) · Advanced materials research · doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.845.604 · Cited by 1
“It has been found throughout the literature that the layout of the patient unit and resources are significant factors that influence the amount of medication errors and therefore should be included in any description of the research context [3, 9].”
BackgroundOr, C. K. (2019) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1204-3.ch064 · Cited by 1
Safety and Health at the Workplace in the Context of COVID-19: The Case of a Dental Clinic
Čiūtienė, R., Čiarnienė, R., & Gaidelys, V. (2022) · Engineering Management in Production and Services · doi:10.2478/emj-2022-0019 · Cited by 1
Guidelines for developing digital triage tools to mitigate workload challenges: A scoping review
Kim, J., & Park, J. (2026) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104742 · Cited by 1
Galindo, C. M. E., Lang, A. R., Ryan, B., et al. (2021) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74611-7_100 · Cited by 1
Introduction to Procedural Sedation Within and Outside the ICU
Tiedt, K. A., Boriosi, J. P., & Hollman, G. A. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52555-2_24 · Cited by 1
The Internet of Things and Opportunities for Pervasive Safety Monitored Health Environments
Michell, V. A. (2017) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2237-9.ch009 · Cited by 1
Visram, S., Potts, L., Sebire, N. J., et al. (2021) · Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1038/s41372-021-01160-0 · Cited by 1
Healthcare Design for Pandemic Resilience: A Systems Thinking Approach
Hashemi, S., & Pati, D. (2026) · HERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal · doi:10.1177/19375867261466289
“Rooted in systems engineering, the SEIPS model aims to improve patient safety and healthcare performance by viewing the healthcare work system as an integrated whole (Carayon et al., 2006).”
Katz, M. J., Salinas, A. B., Stoltzfus, H., et al. (2026) · Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology · doi:10.1017/ash.2026.10324
Improving Handoffs Using a Systems Framework and Simulation
Lopez, K. D., O’Rourke, J., Lane-Fall, M. B., & Abraham, J. (2021) · Comprehensive healthcare simulation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72973-8_10
Lin, S., Alamyah, M. A., Kaufman, B., & Lin, J. (2026) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104876
Patient safety for the surgical trainee
Paisley, A. (2021) · Surgery (Oxford) · doi:10.1016/j.mpsur.2021.09.005
Human Factors Engineering for Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care
Gürses, A. P. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24190-6_4
Self-citationTelephone triage of patients with chest discomfort
Wouters, L. T. C. M. (2020) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · doi:10.33540/435
Ding, H., Zhang, Y., & Ji, Q. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13012-9_16
1 Inleiding in patiëntveiligheid
den Ridder, K., Asten, Y. T.-V., van der Tuijn, Y., et al. (2016) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-1113-2_1
Yin, L. B., Pinkney, S. J., Assadi, A., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099080
Increasing patient safety by adopting system safety in a healthcare setting
Karlsson, K. A., & Hagberg, I. (2015) · Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology)
Britton, D. M. (2017) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)
Developing a Framework for Telehealth Integration into Clinical Workflow
Olivencia, S. B., & Sasangohar, F. (2020) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181320641139
“Findings and lessons learned from the three projects, in addition to grounding from relevant sociotechnical models (Carayon et al., 2006; Sittig & Singh, 2010), informed the development of the System Adoption and Integration of New Telehealth Systems (SAINTS) framework (Figure 1).”
BackgroundGlobal perspectives on the core elements of Antithrombotic Stewardship in hospital
Chong, J., Chen, V. M. Y., Patanwala, A. E., Kwok, K. C., & Penm, J. H.-D. (2026) · Thrombosis Research · doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2026.109719
Wade, J. P., Avnet, M. S., Huang, L., Madni, A. M., Sullivan, K., & Witus, G. (2015) · doi:10.21236/ada631782
Delgado, M. C. M., Guidet, B., & Topeli, A. (2026) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-026-08565-5 · Cited by 1
“The SEIPS (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) framework originally developed by Carayon et al. [4] conceptualizes diagnostic error as a systems issue arising from interactions between the work system, the diagnostic process, and patient outcomes, rather than solely from individual…”
Gomes, K. M., Adams, K., Booker, E. A., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181321651089
“…and consideration of other socio-technical system factors that may contribute to the risk associated with telehealth referral and the differential effects across patient sub-populations and referral types (e.g., emergency department vs. primary care; Carayon et al., 2006; Holden et al., 2013).”
BackgroundThe use of healthcare simulation to identify and address latent safety threats: a scoping review
Lounsbury, O., Tomlinson, A., Wakeling, J., Bowie, P., & Higham, H. (2025) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2025.1682629 · Cited by 1
“In this paper, “systems theory” was defined as a way of understanding work that recognises how multiple elements interact to impact processes and outcomes, characterised by interactions between system factors, emergence, and feedback loops (8, 9).”
Huang, W. (2025) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1097/ceh.0000000000000625
Zhang, T., Mosier, J. M., & Subbian, V. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2873597/v1
Haddadi, W. A. M., Alruwaili, R. Q. O., Alrashidi, M. S., Sumayli, A. M. Y., Alanazi, A. K. J., Alshammari, K., Mutairi, J. A. S. A., Alenezi, M. B. H., Alruwaili, F. A. O., Alruwaili, T. N., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering · doi:10.22399/ijcesen.4916
“The predictability of structured communication also supports team members in anticipating information needs and preparing appropriate responses, further enhancing coordination [25].”
Ali, H. B., Ahmed, A., & Cole, A. B. (2021) · International Journal of Older People Nursing · doi:10.1111/opn.12404
Developing a systematic fall risk assessment tool for outpatient clinics
Drees, A., Heinlein, L., & Yang, Y. (2024) · Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management · doi:10.1177/25160435241305862
Studying What Happens in the OR
Frasier, L. L., & Greenberg, C. C. (2014) · Success in academic surgery · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4718-3_11
“[3].”
The institutional antibiogram: Time for a makeover?
Markham, J. L., Newland, J. G., Burns, A. N., et al. (2025) · Journal of Hospital Medicine · doi:10.1002/jhm.70185
Nicholas, A., Chandra, C., Zissette, S., et al. (2025) · Journal of the American Pharmacists Association · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2025.102986
Enaze, N. S. A., Ghtane, N. M. A., Abdulkader, N. M. A., et al. (2022) · doi:10.53555/jptcp.v29i04.4835
Introduction: Medication Safety in Municipal Health and Care Services
Olsen, R. M., & Sletvold, H. (2022) · doi:10.23865/noasp.172.ch1
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
