ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Engaging patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) in patient safety in healthcare organisations: a rapid scoping review.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEnhancing patient safety is a global priority and active involvement of patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) has been proposed as a key strategy in this endeavour. Preparing and supporting PFAC's activities in the field of patient safety is a crucial step in sustainably implementing patient engagement in healthcare organisations. However, to what extent and through which means remains unclear. Considering these shortcomings, we aimed to synthesise the current literature base, identify and map existing resources designed to educate and support PFACs in patient safety within healthcare organisations.
methodsWe conducted a rapid scoping review. Drawing on predefined eligibility criteria, we reviewed peer-reviewed and grey literature on educational resources on patient-safety-related topics aimed at PFACs in healthcare organisations. We searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) as well as websites of relevant stakeholders and institutions.
resultsOverall, we obtained 13 eligible sources. They featured resources ranging from reading materials to more intensive workshop sessions-combining active and passive learning approaches. Definition of key concepts and stakeholder roles were common topics in most sources. Yet, contents specific to patient safety showed considerable variability, likely due to context-specific approaches, local practices and lack of overall guidelines. Standardised resources tailored to PFACs' unique needs in patient safety were largely absent.
conclusionThis review highlights the limited availability of comprehensive, well-documented resources for PFACs. It further corroborates the need for systematic approaches to support patient engagement activities and meaningful involvement in patient safety. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings provide a first synthesis of the literature, inform future research as well as the development of respective patient engagement initiatives in patient safety. Moreover, they underscore the importance of developing standardised, yet adaptable resources to equip PFACs for their role in fostering safer healthcare systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00034733.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.