Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Health Serv.

Sec. Patient Safety

Volume 5 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1645575

Decades of failure to prevent harm to patients -where are we going wrong?: a mixed methods study of the perspectives of health services staff across Australia and internationally

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
  • 2University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
  • 3University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia
  • 4Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Australia

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Context: Patient Safety Incident (PSI) reviews are undertaken frequently across health services in response to serious adverse events. This study investigatedexperiences and perceptions of healthcare professionals involved in incident review processes across four jurisdictions in Australia, alongside insights from international patient safety experts. These findings will inform the co-design of improvements to PSI review recommendation development and implementation processes.Methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted, and participants completed an attitudinal and demographic survey. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted, and findings were deductively mapped against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Findings: Australian (n=99) and international (n=11) participants took part in one of 25 focus groups (n=78) or 32 interviews. Most participants (n=99) completed the survey. Nearly all survey participants agreed/strongly agreed that PSI reviews are valuable for improving patient safety (95%), particularly when human factors and contextual influences on performance (76%) are considered. Two-thirds of participants agreed that investigations help prevent PSI recurrence (68%), avoid unfair blame (67%), and support continuous improvement (61%). However, fewer participants felt recommendations are consistently accepted by organisations (58%) or are appropriately targeted within the healthcare system (57%). Key strengths and challenges of the PSI review process were identified across three themes: Selection of PSI Reviews; Reviews, recommendations and implementation; and Health Organisations and Wider System Influences. Key PSI review challenges included: limited capacity and engagement, high staff workloads, turnover, and burnout, as well as variable skills, and limited human factors and systems thinking experience across review teams. Despite strong efforts to reduce a punitive culture, resistance to reporting and blame persists across some hospitals.Participants highlighted a learned powerlessness when developing systems thinking-based recommendations, resulting in the development of weaker, less resource intensive recommendations. Limited sharing of learnings and feedback on review findings, and variable monitoring, evaluation and accountability of recommendation implementation were also common challenges.Conclusions: These findings have identified a need for system re-engineering of PSI reviews to address identified challenges and will inform the development of Best Practice Principles and a codesign of patient safety tactics for trial in-situ.

Keywords: [patient safety], MESH[hospital incident reporting], MESH[Risk Management], MESH[Hospitals], MESH[Medical Errors], "incident review", "human factors", "adverse events"

Received: 12 Jun 2025; Accepted: 13 Aug 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Bierbaum, Yu, Molloy, Bowditch, Salmon, Middleton, Braithwaite and Hibbert. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Peter Hibbert, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.