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 1,501–1,600 of 1,789
Multidisciplinary teams effect on major amputations in patients with diabetes
Heneghan, C. J., & Mahtani, K. R. (2020) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111342
Leon, C., Crowley, C. M., Hogan, H., et al. (2025) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1111/dme.70054 · Cited by 1
Navigating the Gap: A Work Domain Analysis of Critical Care Nurses’ Medication Administration
Park, S., Rogith, D., Myneni, S., & Marquard, J. L. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi69079.2026.00203
“…that errors typically emerge from a series of interconnected vulnerabilities, a systems-level perspective that considers interactions among people, tasks, tools/technology, organization, and environment is essential for identifying latent risks and understanding workflow inefficiencies [10], [11].”
Sujan, M. A., & Pickup, L. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781047755993
Hamilton, D. K. (2017) · Critical Care Nursing Quarterly · doi:10.1097/cnq.0000000000000180
Chalhoub, A., & Rakotodranaivo, A. (2026) · Projectics / Proyéctica / Projectique · doi:10.3917/proj.hs06.0263
Wilson, L., Stuebe, A. M., Pearsall, M. S., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434241251431
“Our study is informed by a variety of theoretical concepts drawn from the naturalistic decision-making (Patterson & Hoffman, 2012), human factors (Carayon et al., 2006; Patterson et al., 2022; Roth et al., 2002), and resilience engineering (Neville et al., 2022; Roth et al., 2009) literature.”
Islam, R., Holland, S., Price, B., & Mulholland, P. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.99862
Choy, H. K., Oliva, C. H., Keung, W. Y., et al. (2018) · GSTF Journal of Nursing and Health Care · doi:10.5176/2345-7198_5.1.35
Zoaktafi, M., Russell, M., Bansal, A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813241269241
“For example, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model (Carayon et al., 2006, 2014, 2020) considers the work system elements, including people, tasks, environment, tools and technologies, and organization, and their interactions to guide improvement efforts.”
Analysis of work system components in interprofessional communication to determine shock etiology
Cong, L., Abahuje, E., Slocum, J. D., et al. (2026) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104849
Masteroppgave i Endringsledelse 2009
Andreassen, A. H. (2009)
Karakteristik Alat Pelindung Diri dengan Kejadian Burnout pada Perawat Selama Pandemi COVID-19
Basuki, R., Setiawan, M. R., & Prayogo, I. K. (2023) · MEDICA ARTERIANA (Med-Art) · doi:10.26714/medart.5.1.2023.18-23
Zhao², W., Li, A., Tang, L., Cai, Z., & Li, S. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-026-15007-x
“Inclusion criteria were: [1] current employment in an ICU; [2] participation in IHT of critically ill patients within the preceding 6 months.”
InfluentialGiardinella, S., y Tecnología, U. I. D. C., León, O. D., et al. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-09
Bowers, B., Gwyn, S., McFadzean, I. J., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2026.105544
Exposing Undergraduate Students to the Challenges of Integrating Technology in Healthcare Delivery
Ikuma, L. H., Nahmens, I., Harvey, C., et al. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50341-3_6
Schwei, R. J., Ikenberry, H., Griffin, M., et al. (2026) · Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.1017/ice.2026.10415
“…by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS), a systems engineering framework designed to evaluate healthcare work systems, 14 we characterized multi-level systems challenges to and strategies for resilient, hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) during the…”
Bar-Code Technology and Nursing Adaptations
Liu, J. (2018) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Chenani, K. T., Bolghanabadi, S., Alimohammadlou, M., & Zamanian, Z. (2025) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42922
RetractedMilitary Operating Room of the Future
Gewertz, B. L. (2012) · doi:10.21236/ada567191
Aragona, E., Bronte, F., Gargano, C., et al. (2026) · Intelligent Hospital · doi:10.1016/j.inhs.2026.100092
y Tecnología, U. I. D. C., Campbell, Z., Gómez, N. C. M., et al. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-16
ANÁLISIS Y REGRESIÓN DE ESTADÍSTICAS DE TURISMO EN PANAMÁ
de Panamá, U. T., Batista, S., Berbey-Álvarez, A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-07
Stap 5 – Veiligheids- en kwaliteitsverbeteringen bedenken
Leistikow, I. P., den Ridder, K., & de Vries, B. (2016) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-1289-4_7
Molina-Quihue, G. L., Quintanilla-Romero, M. M., Galindo, C. M. E., et al. (2025) · Springer series in design and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88134-3_20
School bus electrification – A new frontier in bus driver safety and health
Sinelnikov, S. (2024) · Journal of Transport & Health · doi:10.1016/j.jth.2024.101933
Hamilton, C., Hudson, A., Chandra, C., Zissette, S., Rothman, R. D., Alohan, D. I., Klepser, D. G., Quamina, A., Woodson, R. W., Holland, D. P., et al. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/76058
“…and equip pharmacists with the tools needed to deliver comprehensive care; and (3) pilot and assess the implementation of pharmacist-clinician CPAs in community pharmacies, focusing on effectiveness and implementation outcomes, including acceptability, feasibility, and care linkage [64,65].”
Patient Safety Culture: Nurse Manager Safety Rounding and Influencing Characteristics
Anderson, T. (2017) · The Scholarship East Carolina University's Institutional Repository (East Carolina University)
Macroergonomic Compatibility Factors for Manufacturing Systems
Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Maldonado-Macías, A. A., & García-Alcaráz, J. L. (2017) · Management and industrial engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68684-4_5
Ergonomía en los sistemas de salud
de Antioquia, U., Rodríguez, Y., Torres, Y., de Antioquia, U., Pérez, E., & Bolivariana, U. P. (2025) · Editorial Universidad de Antioquia eBooks · doi:10.17533/udea.978-958-501-221-9
FUENTES DE FINANCIAMIENTO NACIONALES E INTERNACIONALES PARA INVESTIGACIÓN
y Tecnología, U. I. D. C., & Engelmann, J. E. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-01
Tandoğan, Ö., Ak, E. Y., HOŞGÖR, H., Kaya, T., & Kadı, D. K. (2026) · Work · doi:10.1177/10519815261491276
Mohan, S. P., Negi, S., Patel, O., Pot, M., Aliyeva, K., Qudrat, A., Qudrat, R., Scarvelis, L., MacDonald, H., Boulerice, S., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1939120
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_8
PHARMACISTS' AND PATIENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF ROLE OF PHARMACIST IN DISCHARGE PROCESS
Vempati, R. T. (2014) · TigerPrints (Clemson University)
Bazuin, T., Oerbekke, M. S., Heus, P., Kusters, M. P. T., Dongelmans, D. A., Visser, A., Franx, A., Wietasch, G. J. K. G., Hooft, L., & van der Laan, M. J. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261450419
“28 This mapping was performed by TB and checked by MK.”
Piranveyseh, P., Mohammadinejad, A., Masmouei, B., Hoonakker, P., Osatuke, K., Cousins, R., & Mokarami, H. (2026) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104805
Delaney, A., McCarthy, S., James, K., & Fleming, A. (2025) · Human Factors in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hfh.2025.100112 · Cited by 1
Lessons Learned in Implementing a Chronic Opioid Therapy Management System
Carlile, N., Fuller, T. E., Benneyan, J. C., Bargal, B., Hunt, L. S., Singer, S. J., & Schiff, G. D. (2022) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001039
Hu, H., Ran, L. I., Yin, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Industrial Engineering · doi:10.3389/fieng.2026.1854270
Designing for collaborative work
Mason, R. E., & Hughes, A. M. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816427-3.00010-5
de Panamá, U. T., Moreno, E., Grey, A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-08
Pomen varnostne kulture za varno in kakovostno obravnavo
Lorber, M., & Dobnik, M. (2025) · doi:10.18690/um.fov.2.2025.39
10-Item Questionnaire: Assessing Clinician User Experience with a Technology or Process Change
Patterson, E. S., Herout, J., & Wright, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813251371649
“Two conceptual frameworks specific to health care are Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS, Carayon, 2006) and Task User Representation and Function (TURF, Zhang, 2011).”
Vernic, C., Bedreag, O. H., Suliţanu, D. C., Petre, I., Muntean, L. I., & Ursoniu, S. (2026) · Nursing Reports · doi:10.3390/nursrep16080290
“The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety and related sociotechnical models frame these differences as predictable consequences of how each role’s work system interacts with technology [16,17].”
dos Santos, E. F., Rosa, J. G. S., & Mazzoni, C. F. (2025) · DAT Journal · doi:10.29147/datjournal.v10i2.1019
CRM op het niveau van de organisatie
van Dyck, C. (2013) · Kernboek · doi:10.1007/978-90-313-9898-0_3
Literatuurstudie naar factoren die de patientveiligheid in ANW beinvloeden
Kramer, J. C., Simons, R., & Rijnders, M. (2009) · TNO Repository
GESTIÓN DEL HOSPEDAJE HOTELERO: COMPETITIVIDAD Y CALIDAD EN EL SERVICIO
Bolívar, U. S., & Moya, N. J. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-12
Türkyılmaz, B., Ayaz, A., & Bahçekapılı, E. (2026) · Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s41347-026-00671-x
Herramientas de ayuda para la atención segura de Ébola en Urgencias
Mira, J. J., Dı́az, E., Gea, T., et al. (2015) · Revista de Calidad Asistencial · doi:10.1016/j.cali.2015.02.006
Arya, E. (2025) · doi:10.30688/janzssa.2026-1-04
“These organisations regard daily refreshers as vital, with evidence showing they sharply reduce risk (Carayon et al., 2006).”
Hjelte, J., Lindberg, J. O., Samén, A., & Forsgren, M. (2026) · Nordic Journal of Social Research · doi:10.18261/njsr.17.1.2
Bibliometric analysis of ergonomics studies in nursing: Trends and highlights between 1981–2025
Doğan, S. E., & Altınbaş, Y. (2026) · Work · doi:10.1177/10519815261473907
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Practice Variability Across Veterans Affairs Hospitals
Scruggs-Wodkowski, E. A., Gauntlett, L., Helminski, D., Blok, A. C., Henry, N., Keller, S. C., Kendall, R. E., Nitta, M., Ranusch, A., Manojlovich, M., et al. (2026) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.29952
The Role of Architecture and Physical Environment in Hospital Safety Design
Cadenhead, C. D., Waggener, L. T., & Goswami, B. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44010-1_12
Zhang, X., Au-Yong, C. P., & Awang, N. A. (2026) · Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · doi:10.1108/ecam-03-2026-0389
Knutsen, I. R., Johnsrud, U. S., Slorafoss, S. J., Haugen, A. G., & Joranger, P. (2022) · doi:10.23865/noasp.172.ch17
Maher, M., Elsaid, T., Alokiel, N., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Practice and Medical Research · doi:10.59324/jcpmr.2026.2(3).21
Alrizqi, M., Summers, J., & Kramer, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the Design Society · doi:10.1017/pds.2026.10360
“The SEIPS model and its extensions (Carayon et al., 2006; Holden et al., 2013) provide a comprehensive work system analysis that considers persons, tasks, tools, technologies, organization, and environment.”
Process-Oriented Organizations
Janeš, A., & Novak, R. (2019) · Advances in human resources management and organizational development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8933-4.ch016
Marcilly, R., Quindroit, P., Lemaître, M., Vambergue, A., Avez, E., Bubeck, A., Hehn, C., Beuscart, J., & Grimes, T. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084475
“17 Background: systems engineering approach Carayon et al proposed the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, 18 19 enhanced by Holden et al , 20 to investigate the complexity of the causes of patient safety incidents by looking at the interactions between the elements of…”
Armstrong, B. A., Tung, A., Gronas, R., Bloom, I., Branton, S., Nayee, H., Fan, M., Rock, R., Wuyungerile, W., Hemani, T., et al. (2026) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000007965
Redesigning Intensive Care Unit Workflows
Murphy, D. J. (2026) · Critical Care Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2026.07.005
Sujan, M. A., & Preston, K. (2026) · Springer series in design and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23073-7_6
Prescribing errors for high-risk medications in a hospital
(2022) · International Journal of Development Research · doi:10.37118/ijdr.24719.06.2022
Standardization in Healthcare Environments: A Scoping Review
Arora, A., & Battisto, D. (2026) · HERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal · doi:10.1177/19375867261485589
Andreguetti, R. R., Besen, N. W., Soares, L., et al. (2026) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2026.102755
Vasif, M., Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Jahangir, & Siddiqui, S. M. (2026) · Intelligent Hospital · doi:10.1016/j.inhs.2026.100074
Sakhuja, P., Durrani, N. U. R., Anand, D., et al. (2026) · Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1038/s41372-026-02721-x
Digital Transformation in Healthcare
Greenhill, R. G., & O’Connor, E. (2023) · Digital Transformation · doi:10.1108/979-8-88730-206-520251013
Piersa, A. P., Thomas, A. T., Urman, R. D., et al. (2026) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000008187
Kandaswamy, S., Won, J. C., Karavite, D., & Hettinger, A. Z. (2021) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181321651036
“(Carayon et al. 2006; Holden et al. 2013) Health IT Black Box: Retrospective Usability Analysis Aaron Z Hettinger, MD, MS”
BackgroundSchaepe, K., Hallbeck, M. S., Singh, M., et al. (2026) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2026.117193
Yee, A. S., Thorp, L., Hutchings, K., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857925141044
The Design and Use of Work Technologies
Waterson, P. E. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394259564.ch9
Ashar, B. S. (2026) · Journal of Robotic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11701-026-03993-3
“As used here, the system spans the connected technologies and their data together with the training, credentialing, staff - ing, workflow, network performance, cybersecurity, and local implementation that shape an episode [ 2].”
Reclaiming the systems identity of human factors and ergonomics in healthcare
Chadwick, L. M., & O’Dea, A. (2026) · Human Factors in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hfh.2026.100130
Ovalle-Castiblanco, A. M., & Cárdenas-Aguirre, D. M. (2019) · Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México)
O’Malley, R., Abad, C. L. R., & O’Connor, P. (2026) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzag096
The application of the SEIPS framework in a digital health context: A scoping review
Carrigan, A., Makeham, M., Jayawardena, T. D., Bamgboje‐Ayodele, A., Clay‐Williams, R., Cheek, C., Newton, N., & Baysari, M. T. (2026) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857926151223
“SEIPS 2.0 model of patient journey and safety (Carayon et al., 2006).”
InfluentialErgonomic Analysis of Chicken Sales in a Peruvian Popular Market Poultry Shop
Angeles-Aspajo, K. N., Tarazona-Carrasco, G. S., Rojas, R. R. R., et al. (2025) · Springer series in design and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88134-3_29
Ethical AI in Radiology: Performance, People, and Post-market Responsibility
Perkins, A. (2026) · EMJ Radiology · doi:10.33590/emjradiol/19453n4h
Khandan, M., & Koohpaei, A. (2026) · Archives of Hygiene Sciences · doi:10.66224/ahs.15.3.101
Godambe, S. A., Federico, F. A., Tooley, E., Capouya, J. D., Pfeifer, B., Frost, K., & McDonald, T. (2026) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2026.06.004
Suggested Unified Approach for Veterinary Healthcare
FRVCS, M. M. B. D. E. (2026) · doi:10.1002/9781394250264.ch13
The application of human factors to the blood transfusion process
Watt, A. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.26174/thesis.lboro.12489734.v2
Using Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge to Form Quality Focused Age-Friendly Teams
Sharma, K. D., Chavan, P. P., & Godambe, S. A. (2026) · American Journal of Medical Quality · doi:10.1097/jmq.0000000000000331
Yee, A. S., Hall, T. N. T., Herlihey, T. A., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857921101249
“…Hospital, St. Michael’s Hospital and The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada have adopted the Safety Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 3.0 framework (Carayon et al. 2006, 2020) as a model of C op yr ig ht 2 02 1 by H um an F ac to rs a nd E rg on om ic s S oc ie ty .”
InfluentialWhen Mental Well-being Isn’t Enough: A Moderated Mediation Model of Clinician Retention in Turkey
Wang, B., Emhan, A. R., & Asan, O. (2026) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857926151126
“SEIPS explicitly includes tools and technology as core components of the work system (Carayon et al., 2006; Holden et al., 2013).”
InfluentialIMPACTO DE LAS REDES DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN LATINOAMÉRICA
de Machala, U. T., & Ruiz, T. F. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-02
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
