Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 246

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Structural and Organizational Issues in Patient Safety: A Comparison of Health Care to other High-Hazard Industries

Gaba, David M.·2000·California Management Review

Abstract

A recent report from the Institute of Medicine has focused attention anew on the incidence of medical errors in the health care industry. While there is a relatively large body of research on how organizations can operate in a highly reliable manner, and thus avoid such errors, little of that work has been done in the health care field. This article discusses the ways in which the health care industry has failed to meet systematically the standards for achieving high reliability, based in part on two existing theories about the management of high-hazard environments-High Reliability Organization Theory (HROT) and Normal Accidents Theory (NAT).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/41166067

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 246

Metadata

Authors
Gaba, D. M.
Venue
California Management Review
Published
2000-10
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
83-102
ISSN
  • 0008-1256 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-8564
OpenAlex
W2320271564
Cited by
246
References
0
FWCI
6.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Structural and Organizational Issues in Patient Safety: A Comparison of Health Care to other High-Hazard Industries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/41166067
The paper
Gaba, D. M. (2000). Structural and Organizational Issues in Patient Safety: A Comparison of Health Care to other High-Hazard Industries. California Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166067

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.