BACKGROUND: Differences in contexts (eg, policies, healthcare organisation characteristics) may explain variations in the effects of patient safety practice (PSP) implementations. However, knowledge of which contextual features are important determinants of PSP effectiveness is limited and consensus is lacking on a taxonomy of which contexts matter. METHODS: Iterative, formal discussions were held with a 22-member technical expert panel composed of experts or leaders in patient safety, healthcare systems, and methods. First, potentially important contextual features were identified, focusing on five PSPs. Then, two surveys were conducted to determine the context likely to influence PSP implementations. RESULTS: The panel reached a consensus on a taxonomy of four broad domains of contextual features important for PSP implementations: safety culture, teamwork and leadership involvement; structural organisational characteristics (eg, size, organisational complexity or financial status); external factors (eg, financial or performance incentives or PSP regulations); and availability of implementation and management tools (eg, training organisational incentives). Panelists also tended to rate specific patient safety culture, teamwork and leadership contexts as high priority for assessing their effects on PSP implementations, but tended to rate specific organisational characteristic contexts as high priority only for use in PSP evaluations. Panelists appeared split on whether specific external factors and implementation/management tools were important for assessment or only description. CONCLUSION: This work can guide research commissioners and evaluators on the contextual features of PSP implementations that are important to report or evaluate. It represents a first step towards developing guidelines on contexts in PSP implementation evaluations. However, the science of context measurement needs maturing.
BACKGROUND: Differences in contexts (eg, policies, healthcare organisation characteristics) may explain variations in the effects of patient safety practice (PSP) implementations. However, knowledge of which contextual features are important determinants of PSP effectiveness is limited and consensus is lacking on a taxonomy of which contexts matter. METHODS: Iterative, formal discussions were held with a 22-member technical expert panel composed of experts or leaders in patient safety, healthcare systems, and methods. First, potentially important contextual features were identified, focusing on five PSPs. Then, two surveys were conducted to determine the context likely to influence PSP implementations. RESULTS: The panel reached a consensus on a taxonomy of four broad domains of contextual features important for PSP implementations: safety culture, teamwork and leadership involvement; structural organisational characteristics (eg, size, organisational complexity or financial status); external factors (eg, financial or performance incentives or PSP regulations); and availability of implementation and management tools (eg, training organisational incentives). Panelists also tended to rate specific patient safety culture, teamwork and leadership contexts as high priority for assessing their effects on PSP implementations, but tended to rate specific organisational characteristic contexts as high priority only for use in PSP evaluations. Panelists appeared split on whether specific external factors and implementation/management tools were important for assessment or only description. CONCLUSION: This work can guide research commissioners and evaluators on the contextual features of PSP implementations that are important to report or evaluate. It represents a first step towards developing guidelines on contexts in PSP implementation evaluations. However, the science of context measurement needs maturing.
Authors: Christopher Fee; Kendall Hall; J Bradley Morrison; Robert Stephens; Karen Cosby; Rollin Terry J Fairbanks; Barbara Youngberg; Gail Lenehan; Jameel Abualenain; Kevin O'Connor; Robert Wears Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Andrada Tomoaia-Cotisel; Debra L Scammon; Norman J Waitzman; Peter F Cronholm; Jacqueline R Halladay; David L Driscoll; Leif I Solberg; Clarissa Hsu; Ming Tai-Seale; Vanessa Hiratsuka; Sarah C Shih; Michael D Fetters; Christopher G Wise; Jeffrey A Alexander; Diane Hauser; Carmit K McMullen; Sarah Hudson Scholle; Manasi A Tirodkar; Laura Schmidt; Katrina E Donahue; Michael L Parchman; Kurt C Stange Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Katherine Finn Davis; Natalie Napolitano; Simon Li; Hayley Buffman; Kyle Rehder; Matthew Pinto; Sholeen Nett; J Dean Jarvis; Pradip Kamat; Ronald C Sanders; David A Turner; Janice E Sullivan; Kris Bysani; Anthony Lee; Margaret Parker; Michelle Adu-Darko; John Giuliano; Katherine Biagas; Vinay Nadkarni; Akira Nishisaki Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Samuel A Silver; Rory McQuillan; Ziv Harel; Adam V Weizman; Alison Thomas; Gihad Nesrallah; Chaim M Bell; Christopher T Chan; Glenn M Chertow Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Mark L Graber; Stephanie M Kissam; Asta V Sorensen; Nancy F Lenfestey; Elizabeth M Tant; Kerm Henriksen; Kenneth A LaBresh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: C Keller; S Arsenault; M Lamothe; S R Bostan; R O'Donnell; J Harbison; C P Doherty Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Archana Laxmisan; Dean F Sittig; Kenneth Pietz; Donna Espadas; Bhuvaneswari Krishnan; Hardeep Singh Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 2.983