PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families.
We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts.
Fifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes \'Transparency\', \'Person-centered\' and \'Trustworthy\' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, \'Restorative justice\' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action.
Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events.
One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.
We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts.
Fifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes \'Transparency\', \'Person-centered\' and \'Trustworthy\' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, \'Restorative justice\' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action.
Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events.
One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.
摘要：
背景：我们对定性证据进行了系统评价，以从经历事件的个人及其家人的角度提高对改变生活的事件后纠正与和解的过程和结果的理解。
方法：我们搜索了六个书目数据库，寻找主要的定性证据，探索经历过改变生活事件的个人的观点。和/或他们的家人或照顾者，补救或和解进程。这补充了有针对性的数据库搜索，谷歌学者和相关网站的正向和反向引用追逐和搜索。标题，摘要和全文筛选由两名审稿人独立进行。数据提取和质量评估由一名审核人员进行，并进行了第二次检查。我们使用了一种最适合的框架综合方法，借鉴程序和恢复性司法概念。
结果：53项研究（61篇论文）符合纳入条件。41项研究(47篇论文)被纳入综合，从中我们确定了四个主题。三个主题“透明度”，“以人为本”和“值得信赖”代表了支持公平客观过程所需的程序要素。第四，“恢复性正义”概括了一个公平的过程对那些经历过改变生活的人的感觉。这一主题强调了参与补救-和解进程的不同各方之间同理心关系的重要性，以及能够采取有意义的行动的重要性。
结论：我们的研究结果强调了确保过程和结果公平所需的补救-和解过程的程序方面和背景。这些标准可以应用于用于调查最近和历史患者安全事件的过程。
■一名隶属于埃克塞特政策研究计划证据审查机构的公众成员帮助制定了审查方案。两名有医学上改变生活事件经验的人提供了见解，证实了我们的发现，并确定了本评论中包含的证据的重要局限性。
方法：我们搜索了六个书目数据库，寻找主要的定性证据，探索经历过改变生活事件的个人的观点。和/或他们的家人或照顾者，补救或和解进程。这补充了有针对性的数据库搜索，谷歌学者和相关网站的正向和反向引用追逐和搜索。标题，摘要和全文筛选由两名审稿人独立进行。数据提取和质量评估由一名审核人员进行，并进行了第二次检查。我们使用了一种最适合的框架综合方法，借鉴程序和恢复性司法概念。
结果：53项研究（61篇论文）符合纳入条件。41项研究(47篇论文)被纳入综合，从中我们确定了四个主题。三个主题“透明度”，“以人为本”和“值得信赖”代表了支持公平客观过程所需的程序要素。第四，“恢复性正义”概括了一个公平的过程对那些经历过改变生活的人的感觉。这一主题强调了参与补救-和解进程的不同各方之间同理心关系的重要性，以及能够采取有意义的行动的重要性。
结论：我们的研究结果强调了确保过程和结果公平所需的补救-和解过程的程序方面和背景。这些标准可以应用于用于调查最近和历史患者安全事件的过程。
■一名隶属于埃克塞特政策研究计划证据审查机构的公众成员帮助制定了审查方案。两名有医学上改变生活事件经验的人提供了见解，证实了我们的发现，并确定了本评论中包含的证据的重要局限性。
