Evidence of Linkages between Patient Safety and Person-Centred Care in the Maternity and Obstetric Context—An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate the current state of knowledge pertaining to patient safety and its link to person-centred care. The international relevance of patient safety has expanded, as have the models of person-centred care. Inspired by this new trend, we collated and summarized the literature for evidence of the two topics. The study was guided by Russell, Whittemore and Knafl’s integrative review framework. An electronic database search was conducted for relevant articles from 2005 to 2016. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The structure and process of the evaluation of the evidence are described and the findings interpreted by means of a thematic synthesis. One theme emerged: trustful, safe communication in the relationship between the patient, family members and healthcare professionals and two domains; safety culture and multidisciplinary capacity building. The dominant dimension in the safety culture domain is respectful communication, which implies sharing experiences that lead to a sense of control during labour and birth and is related to the women’s feeling of personal capacity. The dominant dimensions in the multidisciplinary capacity building domain are collaborative teamwork, coordination and risk management, knowledge sharing and patient-centred communication. In conclusion, to enhance patient safety, it is necessary to develop patient-focused, evidence-based skills and guidelines as well as a supportive organization. Due to their interaction with patients, midwives’ communication competence on the part of midwives is essential for supporting the birth and fulfilling the women’s needs and expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".