Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41284994›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

A Blended Educational Program to Promote Dialogue on Patient Safety Between Patient and Family Advisory Councils and Health Care Organizations: Codevelopment Study.

Yannick Blum, Larissa Brust, Matthias Weigl, Qëndresa Rramani Dervishi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yannick BlumInstitute for Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany, 49 22828713881.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0826-187X
Larissa BrustInstitute for Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany, 49 22828713881.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6290-8512
Matthias WeiglInstitute for Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany, 49 22828713881.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2408-1725
Qëndresa Rramani DervishiInstitute for Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, Bonn, 53127, Germany, 49 22828713881.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0988-7149

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Reducing patient harm and improving patient safety is a central objective in global health care. Effective communication and meaningful patient engagement are considered essential strategies to achieve this goal. However, implementation of structured and strategic patient engagement at the organizational level remains limited, particularly in the context of patient safety. Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) offer a promising model to enhance organizational-level patient engagement, yet guidance on implementation and targeted training for PFAC members is scarce. Objective: This study aimed to codevelop an evidence-informed, blended educational program designed to strengthen PFAC members' competencies in patient safety and communication, and to foster strategic collaboration between PFACs and health care organizations. Methods: The intervention was systematically developed using a logic model framework that structures the development process from available and required resources to the ultimate objectives and impacts. The primary target group included PFAC members, such as patients, relatives, and advocates, as well as health care representatives in leadership, quality management, or coordination roles. The program's content and structure were informed by a nationwide needs and requirements analysis among PFAC members, conducted using a mixed methods Delphi approach, and by a rapid scoping review on existing educational resources and evidence on PFAC engagement in patient safety. Results: Our Partners for Patient Safety blended educational program consisted of 2 modular components: a self-paced e-learning module and a subsequent on-site workshop module. Content addressed three core topics: (1) fundamentals of patient safety, (2) engagement of PFACs, and (3) communication and collaborative goal setting. The e-learning module provided theoretical knowledge using diverse didactic formats, such as interactive tasks, videos, and downloadable materials, and included applied examples using established decision-making and goal-setting frameworks. The workshop module built on the e-learning module and facilitated local implementation through collaborative exercises focused on stakeholder perspectives, communication barriers, and joint goal development. Both modules were aligned with defined learning objectives and combined passive and active learning strategies to promote engagement and practical application. Conclusions: The Partners for Patient Safety program seeks to develop PFAC members' competencies, promote collaboration in patient safety, and foster a culture of safety and partnership within health care organizations. By combining theoretical knowledge with practical, collaborative learning, the program addresses key barriers to effective PFAC engagement at the organizational level. Its modular design allows flexible implementation and has the potential to strengthen cooperation between PFACs and health care representatives, ultimately improving patient safety outcomes. Further evaluation of the program's implementation and effectiveness is needed.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesCommunicationPatient ParticipationPatient SafetyDelphi TechniqueHumanscollaborationcommunicationeducational programpatient engagementpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID41284994
PMCPMC12643403

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.