MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417180578 · doi:10.11124/jbies-25-00086

Care partner engagement in patient safety for adult inpatients at the direct care level in hospital: a qualitative systematic review

2025· article· en· W4417180578 sur OpenAlexaff
Kayley Perfetto, Laura Gonçalves Pozzobon, Kim Sears, Jane O’Hara, Amanda Ross‐White, Lenora Duhn

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient Safety and Medication Errors
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPatient safetyQualitative researchMEDLINEHealth carePatient careIdentification (biology)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative systematic review was to understand the experiences of care partner engagement in patient safety at the direct care level from the perspectives of care partners, adult patients, and health care professionals. INTRODUCTION: Patient safety is a concern for health care organizations. Engaging care partners (eg, family members who can contribute by observing and acting to protect patients) is a strategy to enhance patient safety at the point of care. Understanding the qualitative evidence about care partner experiences in safety is crucial to improve engagement policies and enhance hospital safety strategies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This systematic review included qualitative studies that describe experiences of care partner engagement in patient safety at the direct care level in hospitals from the perspectives of care partners, adult inpatients, and health care professionals who provide care in hospitals. The engagement of care partners in safety in pediatric hospitals was outside the scope of this review. METHODS: This review followed the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence, adhering to an a priori protocol. A 3-step search strategy was employed, including an initial literature search in MEDLINE and searches in 6 databases, with no restrictions on language or publication year. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion and evaluated the papers' methodological quality. Findings were extracted and considered for shared meaning and grouped into categories. In the meta-synthesis, common categories were grouped to produce the synthesized findings. The ConQual approach was used to determine the level of confidence in the synthesized findings. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included. Five synthesized findings were extracted from 16 categories and 76 findings: i) Effective communication with health care professionals ensures that care partners can share unique patient information and receive essential medical details that support safe care, enhance comfort, and are crucial during patient transfers; ii) Care partners can implement strategies to reduce risks and ensure safety during a patient's hospital admission; iii) Health care professionals often have mixed feelings about involving care partners in patient safety and carefully consider how to address their concerns; iv) Engaging in patient safety is an emotional experience for care partners that is not always favorable, particularly when efforts to voice concerns to health care professionals are dismissed; and v) A care partner's willingness and assertiveness to seek and maintain engagement in patient safety efforts is shaped by previous experience(s) with the health care system, self-determined medical knowledge, feelings about trust in the health care professionals, and self-assessed of risk of harm in the given context. CONCLUSIONS: Care partners' willingness to engage in safety activities varies based on health professionals and past health system experiences. Limitations of the review include the lack of research about care partner experiences independent of patients. Recommendations include that care partner safety engagement programs should not place undue burden on care partners. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023476286.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,044
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,726
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,964

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,044
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,076
Tête enseignante GPT0,463
Écart entre enseignants0,387 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsTravaux en français237 207