↓ Skip to main content

Patient and public involvement in patient safety research: a workshop to review patient information, minimise psychological risk and inform research

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
33 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Patient and public involvement in patient safety research: a workshop to review patient information, minimise psychological risk and inform research
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0035-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominic Furniss, Ioanna Iacovides, Imogen Lyons, Ann Blandford, Bryony Dean Franklin, Furniss, D, Iacovides, I, Lyons, I, Blandford, A, Franklin, BD

Abstract

Patient safety is a growing research area. However, although patients and the public are increasingly involved in clinical research, there is little guidance on how best to involve patients in patient safety research. Here we focus on how patients can contribute to the design of patient safety research. We conducted a workshop with patients as part of a project exploring errors and safety in the delivery of intravenous medication (medication given via a vein). The workshop was designed to explore how best to engage with hospital inpatients about these issues, to generate research topics, and to inform researchers about patients' experiences. Nine patients participated, each of whom had previously received intravenous medication. Participants advised against using terms such as 'error'; they also advocated caution when using terms such as 'safety' when describing the study to patients as this may worry some who had not thought about these issues before. We received thorough and useful feedback on our patient information sheets to ensure they were clear and understandable to patients. Patients also shared rich experiences with us about their treatment, which emphasised the need to extend our research focus to include a wider range of factors affecting quality and safety. Background Patient safety has attracted increasing attention in recent years. This paper explores patients' contributions to informing patient safety research at an early stage, within a project on intravenous infusion errors. Currently, there is little or no guidance on how best to involve patients and the wider public in shaping patient safety research, and indeed, whether such efforts are worthwhile. Method We ran a 3-hour workshop involving nine patients with experience of intravenous therapy in the hospital setting. The first part explored patients' experiences of intravenous therapy. We derived research questions from the resulting discussion through qualitative analysis. In the second part, patients were asked for feedback on patient information sheets considering both content and clarity, and on two potential approaches to framing our patient information: one that focused on research on safety and error, the other on quality improvement. Results The workshop led to a thorough review of how we should engage with patients. Importantly, there was a clear steer away from terms such as 'error' and 'safety' that could worry patients. The experiences that patients revealed were also richer than we had anticipated, revealing different conceptions of how patients related to their treatment and care, their role in safety and use of medical devices, the different levels of information they preferred, and broader factors impacting perceptions of their care. Conclusion Involving patients at an early stage in patient safety research can be of great value. Our workshop highlighted sensitivities around potentially worrying patients about risks that they might not have considered previously, and how to address these. Patient representatives also emphasised a need to expand the focus of patient safety research beyond clinicians and error, to include factors affecting perceptions of quality and safety for patients more broadly.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 30%
Researcher 5 19%
Unspecified 4 15%
Other 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 26%
Unspecified 6 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Computer Science 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2019.
All research outputs
#799,992
of 13,507,786 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#84
of 154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,078
of 262,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,507,786 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.