From Safety Science to Operational Reality: Competing Institutional Logics in the Translation of National Patient Safety Recommendations

Clicks: 8
ID: 329452
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #125 of 144 articles by views in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 144 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National patient safety investigation bodies conduct system-level investigations and produce recommendations intended to drive improvement. Evidence that such recommendations translate into meaningful improvement is weak and the reasons for this are poorly understood. This paper examines how recommendations produced by the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB), England's independent national patient safety investigation body, are produced by investigators and received by the national organisations to whom they are directed. METHODS: A qualitative multi-method design was used including documentary analysis of 22 investigation reports produced by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB), predecessor to HSSIB, two focus groups with HSSIB patient safety investigators (n = 12) and semi-structured interviews with 11 senior representatives of national organisations, recipients of HSSIB recommendations. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by institutional logics. RESULTS: Documentary analysis showed that HSIB recommendations were non-directive, clustering at the weakest level of the hierarchy of risk controls and favouring administrative measures. Two competing institutional logics were constructed using reflexive thematic analysis. HSSIB investigators deploy a safety science logic focusing on systems thinking, collaborative engagement and non-punitive learning, while recipient organisations enact a managerial-operational logic prioritising resource management and operational feasibility. Four consequences follow: i) recommendations are attenuated through nominal co-production; ii) recipients navigate priority thickets in which political salience, strategic fit and resource availability govern implementation; iii) accountability among recipients is diffuse; and iv) HSSIB's transparency carries limited traction within the managerial-operational logic. CONCLUSIONS: These conditions produce a paradox: HSSIB's structural separation from the organisations it investigates, while central to its legitimacy as a learning body, can distance it from the operational realities that govern whether recommendations are acted upon. Overcoming this paradox requires deliberate logic-building strategies that address how recommendations are framed, how accountability is constructed, and how the governance landscape is coordinated.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214008430 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Mohammad Farhad Peerally, Elizabeth Sutton, Jane Ferguson, Kieran Walshe, Natalie Armstrong, Expert Advisory Group to REACTION
Journal International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/intqhc/mzag146
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.