21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct against health practitioners: a scoping review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Identifying the risk and predicting complaints and misconduct against health practitioners are essential for healthcare regulators to implement early interventions and develop long-term prevention strategies to improve professional practice and enhance patient safety. This scoping review aims to map out existing literature on the risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct against health practitioners. This scoping review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage methodological framework. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and finished on the same day (6 September 2021). Articles meeting the eligibility criteria were charted and descriptively analysed through a narrative analysis method. The initial search generated 5473 articles. After the identification, screening, and inclusion process, 81 eligible studies were included for data charting. Three key themes were reported: methods used for identifying risk factors and predictors of the complaints and misconduct, synthesis of identified risk factors and predictors in eligible studies, and predictive tools developed for complaints and misconduct against health practitioners. The findings reveal that risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct are complex issues influenced by multiple factors, exhibiting non-linear patterns and being context specific. Further efforts are needed to understand the characteristics and interactions of risk factors, develop systematic risk prediction tools, and facilitate the application in the regulatory environment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Qual Health Care
                Int J Qual Health Care
                intqhc
                International Journal for Quality in Health Care
                Oxford University Press (UK )
                1353-4505
                1464-3677
                2024
                29 December 2023
                29 December 2023
                : 36
                : 1
                : mzad114
                Affiliations
                departmentSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland , Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
                departmentSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland , Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
                departmentSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland , Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
                Author notes
                *Corresponding author. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand. E-mail: yufeng.wang@ 123456auckland.ac.nz

                Handling Editor: Prof. David Greenfield

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8850-6912
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5774-1972
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5350-696X
                Article
                mzad114
                10.1093/intqhc/mzad114
                10791111
                38155372
                d2637894-6a77-4a39-bb1c-b33e9adffb71
                © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 June 2023
                : 17 November 2023
                : 26 December 2023
                : 11 December 2023
                : 13 January 2024
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860

                Medicine
                risk identification,risk prediction,complaints,misconduct,health practitioners
                Medicine
                risk identification, risk prediction, complaints, misconduct, health practitioners

                Comments

                Comment on this article