DOI: 10.12688/hrbopenres.14468.1 ISSN: 2515-4826

Defining Quality, Safety and Risk from an Anaesthesiology perspective – Protocol for a Scoping Review

Sarah Walsh, Amy Horan, Ellen Harbison, Lucy Best, Michael Cusick, Sean Healy, David Mockler, Terry Tan, Una Geary, Marie Ward
Show PDF Cite
Introduction Quality, safety and risk have been defined in numerous ways in healthcare over the last 60 years. Meanwhile, rates of patient harm remain stubbornly consistent since first studied 25 years ago. The aim of this scoping literature review is to understand current definitions of quality, safety or risk from an anaesthesiology perspective and to understand how the definitions influence the management of these domains across the perioperative patient pathway. Methods A scoping review will be carried out according to the Joanna Briggs approach and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. A search strategy will be devised with the help of an expert librarian and the following databases will be searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase. Grey literature from international anaesthesia colleges and societies will also be reviewed using Google Scholar. The Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research (SPIDER) type framework will be used to structure the eligibility criteria. Covidence will be used to support the review. Two reviewers will independently review the title and abstracts, full papers and carry out the data extraction. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for mixed-methods scoping reviews will be followed for data extraction and analysis in this review. Impact In healthcare, numerous definitions for and lack of agreement on how quality, safety and risk should be managed has led to confusion and fragmentation and may have contributed to the stagnation in patient safety efforts worldwide (Wears & Sutcliffe, 2020). This review aims to contribute to the international literature by exploring whether inconsistent definitions of these terms have affected their management within anaesthesiology. Its findings will also support the development of an integrated quality, safety, and risk management system in a large acute teaching hospital.

More from our Archive