↓ Skip to main content

The struggle against perceived negligence. A qualitative study of patients’ experiences of adverse events in Norwegian hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The struggle against perceived negligence. A qualitative study of patients’ experiences of adverse events in Norwegian hospitals
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3101-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gunn Hågensen, Gudrun Nilsen, Grete Mehus, Nils Henriksen

Abstract

Every year, 14 % of patients in Norwegian hospitals experience adverse events, which often have health-damaging consequences. The government, hospital management and health personnel attempt to minimize such events. Limited research on the first-hand experience of the patients affected is available. The aim of this study is to present patients' perspectives of the occurrence of, disclosure of, and healthcare organizations' responses to adverse events. Findings are discussed within a social constructivist framework and with reference to principles of open disclosure policy. This qualitative study with an explorative descriptive design included fifteen in-depth interviews with former patients recruited by the Health and Social Services ombudsmen in the two northernmost counties of Norway. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) experience of adverse events in connection with surgical, orthopedic or medical treatment in general hospitals; 2) men and women; 3) aged 20-70; and 4) a minimum of one year since the event occurred. Transcribed audio-recorded interviews were analyzed through qualitative content analysis. The analysis revealed three main topics regarding patients' experiences of adverse events: 1) ignored concerns or signs of complications; 2) lack of responsibility and error correction; and 3) lack of support, loyalty and learning opportunities. Patients had to struggle to demonstrate the error that had occurred and to receive the necessary treatment and monitoring in the aftermath of the events. Patient narratives reveal a lack of openness, care and responsibility in connection with adverse events. Conflicting power structures, attitudes and established procedures may inhibit prevention, learning and patient safety work in spite of major efforts and good intentions. Attitudes in day-to-day patient care and organizational procedures should be challenged to invite patients into open disclosure processes and include them in health and safety work to a greater extent. The study's small sample of self-selected participants limits the generalizability of the findings, and future studies should include a larger number of patients as well as professional perspectives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Other 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 39 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 40 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,808,074
of 25,008,338 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,843
of 8,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,053
of 332,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#120
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,008,338 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 332,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.