MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Kayley Perfetto, Laura Gonçalves Pozzobon, Kim Sears, Jane O’Hara, Amanda Ross‐White, Lenora Duhn

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyQualitative researchMEDLINEHealth carePatient careIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.387 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207