A framework for classifying patient safety practices: results from an expert consensus process

被引：20

作者：

Dy, Sydney M. ^{[1
]}

Taylor, Stephanie L. ^{[2
,3
]}

Carr, Lauren H. ^{[4
]}

Foy, Robbie ^{[5
]}

Pronovost, Peter J. ^{[1
]}

Ovretveit, John ^{[6
]}

Wachter, Robert M. ^{[4
]}

Rubenstein, Lisa V. ^{[2
,3
]}

Hempel, Susanne ^{[2
]}

McDonald, Kathryn M. ^{[7
]}

Shekelle, Paul G. ^{[2
,3
]}

机构：

[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Baltimore, MD 21090 USA

[2] RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA USA

[3] Vet Adm, Los Angeles, CA USA

[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA

[5] Univ Leeds, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England

[6] Karolinska Inst, Stockholm, Sweden

[7] Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

来源：

BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY | 2011年 / 20卷 / 07期

基金：

美国医疗保健研究与质量局;

关键词：

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; CARE;

D O I：

10.1136/bmjqs.2010.049296

中图分类号：

R19 [保健组织与事业（卫生事业管理）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Objective: Development of a coherent literature evaluating patient safety practices has been hampered by the lack of an underlying conceptual framework. The authors describe issues and choices in describing and classifying diverse patient safety practices (PSPs). Methods: The authors developed a framework to classify PSPs by identifying and synthesising existing conceptual frameworks, evaluating the draft framework by asking a group of experts to use it to classify a diverse set of PSPs and revising the framework through an expert-panel consensus process. Results: The 11 classification dimensions in the framework include: regulatory versus voluntary; setting; feasibility; individual activity versus organisational change; temporal (one-time vs repeated/long-term); pervasive versus targeted; common versus rare events; PSP maturity; degree of controversy/conflicting evidence; degree of behavioural change required for implementation; and sensitivity to context. Conclusion: This framework offers a way to classify and compare PSPs, and thereby to interpret the patient-safety literature. Further research is needed to develop understanding of these dimensions, how they evolve as the patient safety field matures, and their relative utilities in describing, evaluating and implementing PSPs.

引用

页码：618 / 624

页数：7

共 20 条

[1]

*AG HLTH CAR RES Q, AHRQ200910001

[2]

AHRQ, PAT SAF NETW

[3] An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 1. Conceptualising and developing interventions [J].