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 1,701–1,789 of 1,789
Reimagining the Intensive Care Unit as a Complex Adaptive System: A Systems Thinking Perspective
Choudhury, A., Joshi, G., Saigal, S., Pakhare, A. P., & Joshi, A. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.115305
“Human-factors frameworks such as Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) similarly provide a structured way to examine interactions among people, tasks, tools and technologies, organization, and the physical environment [11,12].”
Contributions to risk management : On the balance between value creation and protection
Langdalen, H. (2020) · UiS Scholarly Publishing Services eBooks · doi:10.31265/usps.59
Leistikow, I. P., & Molendijk, A. (2012) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-313-8898-1_2
Leadership and organisational outcomes in healthcare
West, T. (2016) · Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) · doi:10.48780/publications.aston.ac.uk.00028917
Kang, Y., & Hwang, H. (2024) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2024.151790
Leon, C., Crowley, C. M., Hogan, H., & Jani, Y. H. (2025) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1111/dme.70101
Medication safety in emergency departments: a mixed methods study
Tüzün, H., Cebeci, F., & Çetin, S. B. (2026) · BMC Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12873-026-01615-7
“In addition, prior research has emphasized that medication safety competence is shaped by both individual cognitive abilities and the characteristics of the clinical practice environment [17, 18].”
Griffioen, I. P. M., & den Ridder, K. (2016) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-1113-2_7
Applying a human factors approach to proning pillows in the ICU: Opportunities for redesign
Desselle, M. R., Beattie, K. L., Byram, I., Wainwright, L., Coyer, F. M., & Kirrane, M. (2023) · Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries · doi:10.1002/hfm.21023
“One of the most commonly applied human factors approaches in health care is the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model (see Figure 1 for an overview) (Carayon et al., 2006; Holden & Carayon, 2021).”
BackgroundHuddles in Hospital Maternity Settings
Bernstein, S., Bell, J. G., & Broadhurst, R. (2024) · MCN The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing · doi:10.1097/nmc.0000000000001077
Thayer, J. G., Shaeffer, G. P., Fiks, A. G., Jenssen, B. P., Ramachandran, J., Karavite, D., Nabi-Burza, E., Winickoff, J. P., & Grundmeier, R. W. (2026) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocag114
Analysis Techniques for Patient Safety Investigations
FRVCS, M. M. B. D. E. (2026) · doi:10.1002/9781394250264.ch9
Stopping incidents in their tracks: identifying weak signals for error prevention in healthcare
Burford, E.-M., Fray, M., & Waterson, P. E. (2016) · Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University)
Smith, H. A., Carter, V., Phillips, C., et al. (2026) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.70661
Rakha, O. E., & Rakha, E. A. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1136/jcp-2026-210875
Lamé, G., Gaoua, E., Heurtault, B., Blanié, A., Bouthors, C., & Benhamou, D. (2026) · Surgery Open Science · doi:10.1016/j.sopen.2026.06.005
Capire come mai le cose vanno male
Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., & Bellandi, T. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-88-470-1875-4_8
Rekik, R., & Askri, H. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10618642/v1
An Interview with Pascale Carayon
Carayon, P. (2016) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(16)42031-3
Self-citationPatient Safety Reimagined: Designing the Future of Healthcare
Rasmussen, K. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26054-3_11
Macroergonomic Work Systems' Design Factors and Elements
Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Maldonado-Macías, A. A., & Romero-González, J. (2019) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8356-1.ch085
Strayer, A., Bjornson, S., Werner, N. E., & Krupp, A. E. (2025) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.70850
“In SEIPS 2.0, the work system components (person, organization, tasks, tools and technologies, and physical and external environments) each have characteristics or defining elements [16, 17].”
InfluentialThe Contribution of Nursing–Laboratory Communication Quality to Reducing Diagnostic Delays
Alshammari, M. M., Alanazi, A. M. S., Alenezi, A. A. M., Alharbi, K. F. N., AlKhaldi, S. A. S., Alruwili, A. M. I., Aisamare, M. M. F. A., Alenezi, G. A. T., Hawswi, B. U. M., Alsubaie, Z. M. B., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering · doi:10.22399/ijcesen.4766
“…that pre-analytical errors, largely contingent on nursing practice and communication, are the leading cause of sample rejection and test repetition, directly contributing to diagnostic delays of hours or even days, especially in environments with long transport distances or centralized labs [11].”
HERRAMIENTA EDUCATIVA DE REALIDAD MIXTA PARA EL ENTRENAMIENTO DE ESTUDIANTES DEL ÁREA DE SALUD
Bosque, U. E., Ronderos-Guzmán, N. E., Acevedo, A. L. S., et al. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-18
Healthcare Leadership Competencies
(2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2225-4.ch006
van Bon, A., & Griffioen, I. P. M. (2016) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-1113-2_6
Tondo, J. C. A. (2015) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2015.953182
Shared Sensemaking and Clinical Decision-Making in Critical Care from a SA-Oriented Dashboard
Boudreault, L., Jouvet, P. A., & Doyon-Poulin, P. (2023) · Springer series in design and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32198-6_9
Fiorentino, A., Antonini, M., Vuilleumier, S., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2915359/v1
Senathirajah, Y., Kaufman, D. R., Cato, K., et al. (2024) · Online Journal of Public Health Informatics · doi:10.2196/63681
“The codings schema included 13 top-level codes based on a modified version of the SEIPS model developed by Carayon with additional concept codes specific to this context [11].”
Technologie als middel om de gezondheidszorg te verbeteren
Heijblom, M., Holkers-Veltkamp, D. A., & Adriaansen, M. (2018) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-2129-2_5
Bowie, P., Ives, F., Hignett, S. M., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.11.26.25341049
Surgical Quality and Safety: Current Initiatives and Future Directions
Nguyen, M., & Moffatt, S. D. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51397-3_9
Macroergonomics Approach for Developing the Next Generation of Safety Culture Maturity Model
Mulyasari, W., Ciptomulyono, U., & Sudiarno, A. (2026) · Safety and Health at Work · doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2026.02.001
“In macroergonomics, the work system is divided into five subsystems: organization, job and task, human, environment, and tools and technology [9].”
Choe, J., Lee, H., & Woo, K. (2024) · Quality Improvement in Health Care · doi:10.14371/qih.2024.30.2.119 · Cited by 1
Systemic patterns of patient safety events in radiology: When, where, and why things go wrong
Baccei, S. J., Kaddouri, B. E., Kifjak, D., et al. (2026) · Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology · doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2026.04.005
Institutionalisierte Integrationsmodelle in deutschen Kliniken
Hradecky, D. M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-52053-3_11
Assessing BYOD Security Maturity: A Survey of Australian Hospitals
Wani, T. A., Mendoza, A., & Gray, K. M. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92840-6_15
Porter, P. (2016) · USF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco)
Working Conditions and Patient Safety
Hecker, S. F. (2012) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b11563-9
Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Spine Surgery Duration
Ko, M., Lee, H., Lee, H. S., Lee, B., Lee, M. W., Kim, Y. W., & Park, J. H. (2026) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina62071308
“Third, integrating predictive models into scheduling workflows requires development of intuitive user interfaces and prospective evaluation of clinical utility [26].”
Hsu, A. H. S., Chen, C. H., Wei, J.-T., et al. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14142046
“Human Factors Engineering (HFE) provides a robust framework for optimizing the interface between nursing staff and their work system, ensuring that safety is designed into the clinical workflow [7].”
Software Development for Ergonomic Compatibility Assessment of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Maldonado-Macías, A. A., & Hernández-Escobedo, G. (2019) · Advances in systems analysis, software engineering, and high performance computing book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9448-2.ch003
“…ergonomic assessment covers several aspects, such as physical and psychological characteristics of employees, workstations design, physical environment conditions, organizational conditions, and technology (Carayon et al., 2006; Realyvásquez, Maldonado-Macías, García-Alcaraz, & Arana, 2018).”
BackgroundPROYECTO DE EXTENSIÓN SOCIAL COMUNITARIA Y LAS ODS
y Tecnología, U. I. D. C., & Brito, D. (2021) · doi:10.47300/978-9962-5599-8-6-27
Frisson, A., Damiaens, A., Fieuws, S., et al. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13613-9
“The survey is divided into five categories, based on the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model: persons, tasks, environment, organization, and technology and tools [25].”
Human Factors and Organizational Issues
Senathirajah, Y., Sylvia Pelayo, A., & Issues, S. E. F. T. I. Y. S. O. H. F. A. O. (2020) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0040-1702012
“It augments the existing Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) theoretical framework [6], bridges disciplines, and suggests design solutions.”
BackgroundLeite, C. C. M., Chronopoulou, A., & Wooldridge, A. R. (2023) · Springer series in design and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32198-6_26
Ladell, M. M., Jacobson, N. L., Yale, S. C., et al. (2026) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104844
Using network analysis to support fluid teams managing postpartum hemorrhage
Hale-Lopez, K. L., Verma, N., Chakravarthy, S., Handler, J. A., Ebert-Allen, R. A., Bond, W. F., & Wooldridge, A. R. (2025) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2025.2495011
“…initiative for Patient safety (seiPs) model is commonly used to examine healthcare systems and identify interventions to improve system outcomes (carayon et al., 2006; carayon et al., 2020; holden et al., 2013). the seiPs model builds upon the structure-Process-Outcome model for healthcare…”
InfluentialAdvancing healthcare equity through human factors engineering
Alfred, M. C., Tully, K. P., & Montague, E. N. H. (2024) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103654
The importance of management capability in healthcare practice
Koche, A., Zhao, Y., Dey, P. K., et al. (2026) · Contact Lens and Anterior Eye · doi:10.1016/j.clae.2026.102812
Sun, N., Su, J., Yu, Q., et al. (2026) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/98247
Tovar, L., Mendoza, J. G., Kaushal, A., Llamas, M. G., Pennathur, P., & Pennathur, A. (2026) · Dementia · doi:10.1177/14713012261449855
Sprachkompetenz und Kommunikation im Pflegealltag
Hradecky, D. M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-52053-3_6
Macroergonomic Compatibility Concept 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_4
Beyond Awareness: Building Human Factors Capability in Healthcare Through Shared Resources
Cohen, T., & Bitan, Y. (2026) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2026.03.009
Additional file 1 of Healthcare team resilience during COVID-19: a qualitative study
Ambrose, J. W., Catchpole, K. C., Evans, H. L., Nemeth, L. S., Layne, D. M., & Nichols, M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25596482
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088102
Ford, J. H., Nora, A., & Crnich, C. J. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26652624
Mamalelala, T. T., Holzemer, W. L., Seloilwe, E., & Iwu, E. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26401957
Ford, J. H., Nora, A., & Crnich, C. J. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26652621
Ramly, E., Lauver, D., Gilmore‐Bykovskyi, A. L., & Bartels, C. M. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14707822
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088105
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088099
Watterson, T. L., Stone, J. A., Kleinschmidt, P. C., & Chui, M. A. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26650140
Ford, J. H., Nora, A., & Crnich, C. J. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26652627
Mamalelala, T. T., Holzemer, W. L., Seloilwe, E., & Iwu, E. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26402049
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088108
Deilkås, E. T., Rosta, J., Baathe, F., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21400424
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088114
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088096
Larsen, E. P., Silvestro, E., Ferro, D. F., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21547423
Ramly, E., Lauver, D., Gilmore‐Bykovskyi, A. L., & Bartels, C. M. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14707819
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088120
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088117
Ford, J. H., Nora, A., & Crnich, C. J. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26652630
Yao, X., Paulson, M., Maniaci, M. J., Dunn, A. N., Nelson, C. R., Behnken, E., Hart, M. S., Sangaralingham, L. R., Inselman, S. A., Lampman, M. A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20088111
Ford, J. H., Nora, A., & Crnich, C. J. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26652633
Describing Team Membership During Maternal Hemorrhage Events
Hale-Lopez, K. L., Verma, N., Chakravarthy, S., Handler, J. A., Ebert-Allen, R. A., Bond, W. F., & Wooldridge, A. R. (2025) · Springer series in design and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-9334-4_48
Vernic, C., Bedreag, O. H., Suliţanu, D. C., Muntean, L. I., & Ursoniu, S. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14193306
Kurup, C., & Rijal, D. (2026) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.70881
“In healthcare, the SEIPS model extends this systems perspective by conceptualising patient safety and care quality as outcomes emerging from interactions among people, tasks, tools and technologies, organisational conditions and the physical work environment (Carayon et al. 2006).”
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
