ORCID Profile
0000-0002-8799-0443
Current Organisation
University of Bradford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 31-05-2010
Abstract: Previous research has established health professionals as secondary victims of medical error, with the identification of a range of emotional and psychological repercussions that may occur as a result of involvement in error.2 3 Due to the vast range of emotional and psychological outcomes, research to date has been inconsistent in the variables measured and tools used. Therefore, differing conclusions have been drawn as to the nature of the impact of error on professionals and the subsequent repercussions for their team, patients and healthcare institution. A systematic review was conducted. Data sources were identified using database searches, with additional reference and hand searching. Eligibility criteria were applied to all studies identified, resulting in a total of 24 included studies. Quality assessment was conducted with the included studies using a tool that was developed as part of this research, but due to the limited number and erse nature of studies, no exclusions were made on this basis. Review findings suggest that there is consistent evidence for the widespread impact of medical error on health professionals. Psychological repercussions may include negative states such as shame, self-doubt, anxiety and guilt. Despite much attention devoted to the assessment of negative outcomes, the potential for positive outcomes resulting from error also became apparent, with increased assertiveness, confidence and improved colleague relationships reported. It is evident that involvement in a medical error can elicit a significant psychological response from the health professional involved. However, a lack of literature around coping and support, coupled with inconsistencies and weaknesses in methodology, may need be addressed in future work.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 03-2015
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 16-03-2011
DOI: 10.1111/J.1365-2753.2011.01662.X
Abstract: RATIONALE, AIMS & OBJECTIVE: Tools for the assessment of the quality of research studies tend to be specific to a particular research design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, or qualitative interviews). This makes it difficult to assess the quality of a body of research that addresses the same or a similar research question but using different approaches. The aim of this paper is to describe the development and preliminary evaluation of a quality assessment tool that can be applied to a methodologically erse set of research articles. The 16-item quality assessment tool (QATSDD) was assessed to determine its reliability and validity when used by health services researchers in the disciplines of psychology, sociology and nursing. Qualitative feedback was also gathered from mixed-methods health researchers regarding the comprehension, content, perceived value and usability of the tool. Reference to existing widely used quality assessment tools and experts in systematic review confirmed that the components of the tool represented the construct of 'good research technique' being assessed. Face validity was subsequently established through feedback from a s le of nine health researchers. Inter-rater reliability was established through substantial agreement between three reviewers when applying the tool to a set of three research papers (κ = 71.5%), and good to substantial agreement between their scores at time 1 and after a 6-week interval at time 2 confirmed test-retest reliability. The QATSDD shows good reliability and validity for use in the quality assessment of a ersity of studies, and may be an extremely useful tool for reviewers to standardize and increase the rigour of their assessments in reviews of the published papers which include qualitative and quantitative work.
Publisher: Mark Allen Group
Date: 08-2010
DOI: 10.12968/IJPN.2010.16.8.377
Abstract: This study explores the experiences of health professionals in managerial roles at various levels in child and adult hospice care in northern England, studying perspectives around managing medical error, the issues that arise, and the challenges faced. A multicentred, descriptive, exploratory design was adopted. The s le comprised 10 hospice managers (five deputy and five senior managers) from four hospices (two adult and two children's) in the north of England. Participants took part in in idual semi-structured interviews, which lasted between 45–60 minutes each. Interviews were transcribed and analysed by a team of three researchers, including two health psychologists and one nurse using a qualitative analytic framework. Emerging themes appeared to be inter-related and were ultimately linked to two meta-concepts underpinning and fundamental to the data, these issues were intrinsically tied to all emerging themes. Primary themes were defined by their explanatory power and regularity. Primary themes highlighted the impact of managing error on management teams at a professional and personal level, the challenges for error management in hospice settings, the use of error management tools, and the conceptualization of blame in these settings. The strong influence of the health-care setting in which an error takes place on the outcomes of an error event for the health professional, managers, health-care organizations, and ultimately patients was evident.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 02-2012
Abstract: Leadership has been proposed as a key latent factor influencing the safety culture of an organization, the likelihood of errors occurring and the way in which these are managed. Therefore, when an error occurs, managers have an integral role to ensure that the most desirable outcomes are achieved for patients, health-care staff and their organization. Semistructured interviews were conducted in a large UK teaching hospital to explore the perspectives of staff who are tasked in some way with managing patient safety. Data from 26 transcripts were analysed using an adapted version of Spencer's (2003) qualitative framework, which revealed five primary themes. This paper reports findings from two overarching primary themes, described as being management and safety subcultures. These themes describe experiences of managing medical errors and the subgroup variations between professions, ranks and specialties in attitudes and behaviours towards error, and its management in a large National Health Service Trust. We discuss implications for health-care managers and health professionals in developing a stronger and more unified safety culture in their organizations, along with considerations for academic researchers when undertaking health services research.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 15-02-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S12913-021-06122-Y
Abstract: In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research. Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD ( n =197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses. Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research. Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 11-05-2016
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Peter Gardner.