Article Text

other Versions

PDF
The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices
  1. Robbie Foy1,
  2. John Ovretveit2,
  3. Paul G Shekelle3,4,
  4. Peter J Pronovost5,
  5. Stephanie L Taylor3,4,
  6. Sydney Dy5,
  7. Susanne Hempel3,
  8. Kathryn M McDonald6,
  9. Lisa V Rubenstein3,4,
  10. Robert M Wachter7
  1. 1Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  2. 2Medical Management Centre, The Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  3. 3RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA
  4. 4VA Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  5. 5The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  6. 6Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  7. 7University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Robbie Foy, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9LJ, UK; r.foy{at}leeds.ac.uk

Abstract

Theories provide a way of understanding and predicting the effects of patient safety practices (PSPs), interventions intended to prevent or mitigate harm caused by healthcare or risks of such harm. Yet most published evaluations make little or no explicit reference to theory, thereby hindering efforts to generalise findings from one context to another. Theories from a wide range of disciplines are potentially relevant to research on PSPs. Theory can be used in research to explain clinical and organisational behaviour, to guide the development and selection of PSPs, and in evaluating their implementation and mechanisms of action. One key recommendation from an expert consensus process is that researchers should describe the theoretical basis for chosen intervention components or provide an explicit logic model for ‘why this PSP should work.’ Future theory-driven evaluations would enhance generalisability and help build a cumulative understanding of the nature of change.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding AHRQ.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles