• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Adverse event reviews in healthcare: what matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family.医疗保健中的不良事件审查:患者及其家属关心什么?一项探索患者和家属观点的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 May 9;12(5):e060158. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060158.
2
Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study.加强英国国民保健制度产科服务中的公开披露:DISCERN 现实主义评价研究。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Aug;12(22):1-159. doi: 10.3310/YTDF8015.
3
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
4
Improving reconciliation following medical injury: a qualitative study of responses to patient safety incidents in New Zealand.改善医疗伤害后的和解:新西兰患者安全事件应对的定性研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):788-798. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005804. Epub 2017 Mar 9.
5
Critical Care Network in the State of Qatar.卡塔尔国重症监护网络。
Qatar Med J. 2019 Nov 7;2019(2):2. doi: 10.5339/qmj.2019.qccc.2. eCollection 2019.
6
Understanding how children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience living with pain, pain management and services: a meta-ethnography.理解患有慢性非癌症疼痛的儿童和青少年及其家庭的疼痛体验、疼痛管理和服务:一项荟萃民族志研究。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Jul;12(17):1-218. doi: 10.3310/UTPM7986.
7
Provision and uptake of routine antenatal services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.常规产前服务的提供与接受情况:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 12;6(6):CD012392. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012392.pub2.
8
Palliative care experiences of adult cancer patients from ethnocultural groups: a qualitative systematic review protocol.不同种族文化群体成年癌症患者的姑息治疗体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):99-111. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1809.
9
Healthcare users' experiences of communicating with healthcare professionals about children who have life-limiting conditions: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医疗保健使用者就患有危及生命疾病的儿童与医疗保健专业人员沟通的经历:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Nov;13(11):33-42. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2413.
10
Thinking ahead about medical treatments in advanced illness: a qualitative study of barriers and enablers in end-of-life care planning with patients and families from ethnically diverse backgrounds.预先思考晚期疾病的医疗治疗:对不同种族背景的终末期患者和家庭进行临终关怀规划的障碍和促进因素的定性研究。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Jun;11(7):1-135. doi: 10.3310/JVFW4781.

引用本文的文献

1
The Learn Together programme (part B): evaluating co-designed guidance to support patient and family involvement in patient safety incident investigations.共同学习计划(B部分):评估共同设计的指南,以支持患者及家属参与患者安全事件调查。
Front Health Serv. 2025 Apr 22;5:1520816. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1520816. eCollection 2025.
2
The Learn Together programme (part A): co-designing an approach to support patient and family involvement and engagement in patient safety incident investigations.共同学习计划(A部分):共同设计一种方法,以支持患者及家属参与患者安全事件调查。
Front Health Serv. 2025 Mar 26;5:1529035. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1529035. eCollection 2025.
3
Restorative initiatives: emerging insights from design, implementation and collaboration in five countries.恢复性举措:来自五个国家的设计、实施与合作的新见解
Front Health Serv. 2025 Feb 28;5:1472738. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1472738. eCollection 2025.
4
Humanizing processes after harm part 1: patient safety incident investigations, litigation and the experiences of those affected.伤害后的人性化进程 第1部分:患者安全事件调查、诉讼及受影响者的经历
Front Health Serv. 2025 Jan 3;4:1473256. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1473256. eCollection 2024.
5
Humanising processes after harm part 2: compounded harm experienced by patients and their families after safety incidents.伤害后的人性化进程 第2部分:安全事件后患者及其家属遭受的复合伤害
Front Health Serv. 2024 Dec 17;4:1473296. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1473296. eCollection 2024.
6
Factors influencing the nature of client complaint behaviour in the aftermath of adverse events.不良事件发生后影响患者投诉行为性质的因素。
Vet Rec. 2025 Mar 15;196(6):e4966. doi: 10.1002/vetr.4966. Epub 2024 Dec 29.
7
Patient perspectives on adverse event investigations in health care.患者对医疗保健中不良事件调查的看法。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Sep 10;24(1):1044. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11522-x.
8
Beyond the numbers: Classifying contributory factors and potentially avoidable adverse events in the gynaecology service of National Women's Health at Auckland District Health Board.数字之外:奥克兰地区卫生局国家妇女健康部妇科服务中促成因素及潜在可避免不良事件的分类
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2024 Dec;64(6):619-625. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13844. Epub 2024 Jun 11.
9
Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence.患者、照顾者和家属在经历改变生活的事件后寻求赔偿和和解的体验:系统评价定性证据。
Health Expect. 2023 Dec;26(6):2127-2150. doi: 10.1111/hex.13820. Epub 2023 Jul 14.
10
Planned improvement actions based on patient safety incident reports in Estonian hospitals: a document analysis.基于爱沙尼亚医院患者安全事件报告的计划改进措施:文件分析。
BMJ Open Qual. 2023 May;12(2). doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002058.

本文引用的文献

1
Learning from the report of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review: "first do no harm".从独立药品和医疗器械安全审查报告中汲取经验:“首要之务,勿伤患者” 。
Scott Med J. 2022 Feb;67(1):2-6. doi: 10.1177/00369330211058467. Epub 2022 Jan 7.
2
What Drives Patients' Complaints About Adverse Events in Their Hospital Care? A Data Linkage Study of Australian Adults 45 Years and Older.是什么导致患者对医院护理不良事件的投诉?一项针对 45 岁及以上澳大利亚成年人的数据分析研究。
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e1622-e1632. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000813.
3
Openness to new perspectives created by patient participation at the morbidity and mortality meeting.患者参与发病率和死亡率会议所带来的新视角。
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Feb;104(2):343-351. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.008. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
4
Just Culture Is Not "Just" Culture-It's Shifting Mindset.公正文化并非“公正”文化——它是思维模式的转变。
Mil Med. 2020 Oct 1;185(Suppl 3):52-57. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usaa143.
5
Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights.从医疗保健投诉中学习:对学术文献、政策证据和一线观点的现实主义综述。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Aug;29(8):684-695. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009704. Epub 2020 Feb 4.
6
Next of Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part I - The Next of Kin's Perspective).近亲参与导致患者死亡的不良事件监管调查:过程评估(第一部分 - 近亲视角)。
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e1713-e1718. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000630.
7
"I'm Trying to Stop Things Before They Happen": Carers' Contributions to Patient Safety in Hospitals.“我试图在事情发生之前阻止它们”:医院中护理人员对患者安全的贡献。
Qual Health Res. 2019 Aug;29(10):1508-1518. doi: 10.1177/1049732319841021. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
8
PARENTS 2 Study: a qualitative study of the views of healthcare professionals and stakeholders on parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review-from 'bottom of the pile' to joint learning.PARENTS 2 研究:一项定性研究,探讨医疗保健专业人员和利益相关者对父母参与围产期死亡审查的看法——从“最底层”到共同学习。
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 22;8(11):e023792. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023792.
9
Involving Patients and Families in the Analysis of Suicides, Suicide Attempts, and Other Sentinel Events in Mental Healthcare: A Qualitative Study in The Netherlands.让患者及其家属参与精神卫生保健中自杀、自杀未遂和其他警戒事件的分析:荷兰的一项定性研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 May 29;15(6):1104. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15061104.
10
Patients' Experiences With Communication-and-Resolution Programs After Medical Injury.医疗损伤后患者对沟通与解决计划的体验。
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Nov 1;177(11):1595-1603. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.4002.

医疗保健中的不良事件审查:患者及其家属关心什么?一项探索患者和家属观点的定性研究。

Adverse event reviews in healthcare: what matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family.

机构信息

Person Centred Care, NHS Education for Scotland West Region, Glasgow, UK

Intensive Care, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2022 May 9;12(5):e060158. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060158.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060158
PMID:35534075
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9086600/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Explore what 'good' patient and family involvement in healthcare adverse event reviews may involve.

DESIGN

Data was collected using semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

SETTING

NHS Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

19 interviews were conducted with patients who had experienced an adverse event during the provision of their healthcare or their family member.

RESULTS

Four key themes were derived from these interviews: trauma, communication, learning and litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many advantages of actively involving patients and their families in adverse event reviews. An open, collaborative, person-centred approach which listens to, and involves, patients and their families is perceived to lead to improved outcomes. For the patient and their family, it can help with reconciliation following a traumatic event and help restore their faith in the healthcare system. For the health service, listening and involving people will likely enhance learning with subsequent improvements in healthcare provision with reduction in risk of similar events occurring for other patients. This study suggests eight recommendations for involving patients and families in adverse event reviews using the APICCTHS model (table 3) which includes an apology, person-centred inclusive communication, closing the loop, timeliness, putting patients and families at the heart of the review with appropriate support for staff involved. Communicating in a compassionate manner could also decrease litigation claims following an adverse event.

摘要

目的

探讨患者和家属积极参与医疗不良事件审查可能涉及的内容。

设计

使用半结构化电话访谈收集数据。使用归纳主题分析方法对访谈记录进行分析。

地点

苏格兰国民保健署。

参与者

对在医疗保健过程中经历过不良事件的患者或其家属进行了 19 次访谈。

结果

从这些访谈中得出了四个关键主题:创伤、沟通、学习和诉讼。

结论

积极让患者及其家属参与不良事件审查有很多好处。人们认为,开放、协作、以患者为中心的方法,倾听并让患者及其家属参与其中,将导致更好的结果。对于患者及其家属来说,这有助于缓解创伤事件后的和解,并有助于恢复他们对医疗体系的信心。对于医疗服务机构而言,倾听和参与将有助于学习,随后改善医疗服务提供,并降低其他患者发生类似事件的风险。本研究提出了使用 APICCTHS 模型(表 3)让患者及其家属参与不良事件审查的八项建议,包括道歉、以患者为中心的包容性沟通、循环结束、及时性、将患者及其家属置于审查的核心并为相关工作人员提供适当的支持。以同情的方式进行沟通也可以减少不良事件后的诉讼索赔。