Patient safety research treats harm as a product of systems rather than of careless individuals. Carayon et al. (2006) set out the SEIPS work-system model, Nieva and Sorra (2003) made the case for measuring safety culture, and Manser (2009) reviewed teamwork in operating rooms, intensive care and emergency medicine. A large strand links safety to nurse staffing, hours and burnout: Rogers et al. (2004) on shifts over twelve hours, Aiken et al. (2012) across 12 European countries and the US, Hall et al. (2016) on staff wellbeing. The founding documents of the field are book-length reports, so they are missing from DOI-based lists such as this one.
How the literature is organised
The founding documents of the field are book-length reports rather than journal articles, so the oldest works listed here are from 2003. The journal literature is organised by the part of the system it examines.
One group studies organisations and culture. Nieva and Sorra (2003) set out safety culture assessment as a tool for improvement and described the instruments then available; Azyabi, Karwowski and Davahli (2021) name the ones in use now — the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, the Patient Safety Climate in Health Care Organizations, the Modified Stanford Instrument and the Scottish Hospital Safety Questionnaire. A second group applies human factors engineering: Carayon et al. (2006) present the SEIPS model as a framework for relating structures, processes and outcomes in health care, worked through for outpatient surgery. Wiegmann et al. (2022) do the same service for the Swiss cheese model, arguing that the underlying theory of active and latent failures is often misunderstood by both its users and its critics. A third group studies teams: Manser (2009) draws on three lines of evidence — incident analyses, staff perceptions and observational studies of team behaviour — for teamwork in operating rooms, intensive care and emergency medicine, and Aggarwal et al. (2010) review training and simulation.
The fourth group, and the most useful one for nursing students, concerns the workforce. Rogers et al. (2004) had 393 hospital staff nurses keep logbooks and found that about 40% of the 5,317 shifts logged ran beyond twelve hours, with significantly increased error risk on those shifts, on overtime and above forty hours a week. Aiken et al. (2012) surveyed 33,659 nurses and 11,318 patients in 12 European countries plus a US sample and found that nurses in better work environments were half as likely to give their hospital a poor or failing safety grade, while each additional patient per nurse raised those odds. Hall et al. (2016) reviewed 46 studies and found poor wellbeing and burnout associated with worse patient safety in most of them, while noting that the lack of prospective studies makes causality hard to establish. Specific hazards have their own entry points: Burke (2003) on health care-associated infection and Trzeciak and Rivers (2003) on emergency department overcrowding.
Main debates
The first argument is about the systems view itself. Wiegmann et al. (2022) note that some authors dismiss the Swiss cheese model as an oversimplification of how accidents happen while others try to extend it, and their review is an attempt to settle what the theory actually claims before either side proceeds.
The second is about measurement, and it matters for any thesis built on survey data. Vikan et al. (2023) mapped 34 studies of the association between patient safety culture scores and adverse event rates: 76% found that higher culture scores went with fewer adverse events, but the studies differ in the tools they use, the units they measure and what they report, and the review found too few comparable studies to pool. Kakemam et al. (2021), surveying 2,295 nurses in 32 Iranian teaching hospitals, is an example of how the two are usually measured together — both by asking the same nurses. Janes et al. (2021) meta-analysed staff engagement against safety outcomes and found the relationship real but small (r = 0.22), and say plainly that causality is not established.
Where recent work is heading
Recent well-cited work covers clinician welfare after incidents: Vanhaecht et al. (2022) reviewed 83 publications and put a consensus definition of the second victim to an international expert group. Nijor et al. (2022) reviewed 28 studies on information overload in electronic health records and found irrelevant information, poor data display and excessive alerting raising cognitive load and error rates. Dietl et al. (2023) surveyed 137 staff before and after a four-hour communication intervention in two obstetric units and found perceived patient safety risks lower afterwards, though not communication or team performance. Bates et al. (2021) reviewed 392 studies on artificial intelligence across eight harm domains and expect the largest gains where current strategies fail and unstructured data have to be combined — adverse drug events, decompensation and diagnostic errors. Ocloo et al. (2021) reviewed 42 reviews on patient and public involvement and found theory and equality and diversity to be the neglected corners of it.
Most-cited foundational papers
Published before 2021 and ranked by how often later work cites them. Read the abstract of each and the full text of the three or four closest to your question. Citation count measures attention, not quality, so treat this as a map of what the field has argued about rather than a ranking of what is true.
R. Aggarwal and 11 others (2010). Quality and Safety in Health Care.
Cited by 743Open accessdoi:10.1136/qshc.2009.038562
Most-cited papers since 2021
Primary studies and conceptual papers from 2021 onwards. A paper published in 2024 has had a few years to accumulate citations where the works in the section above have had decades, so compare these counts with each other rather than with the ones above.
Leodoro J. Labrague and 4 others (2022). Journal of Nursing Management.
Cited by 102doi:10.1111/jonm.13491
Recent reviews and meta-analyses
The fastest way into a literature. A good review gives you the structure of the field, a reference list to mine and, in its limitations section, the gaps other researchers have already spotted.
Gillian Janes and 4 others (2021). Journal of Patient Safety.
Cited by 119Open accessdoi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000807
How big the literature is, and where it is published
OpenAlex indexes 29,830 works whose title matches this topic. The chart shows how many were published each year from 2000 to 2025; the current year is left out because it is incomplete.
Show the numbers as a table
Year
Works
2000
95
2001
220
2002
311
2003
348
2004
501
2005
782
2006
669
2007
620
2008
896
2009
852
2010
859
2011
1,036
2012
1,015
2013
1,153
2014
1,162
2015
1,277
2016
1,355
2017
1,445
2018
1,455
2019
1,528
2020
1,417
2021
1,296
2022
1,296
2023
1,543
2024
1,823
2025
2,132
Journals behind the most-cited work
Counted across the 372 most-cited works on the topic, not across everything published. Browsing recent issues of the first two or three is a reliable way to find current work that has not yet been cited much.
BMJ Quality & Safety29 papers
BMC Health Services Research15 papers
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15 papers
BMC Nursing14 papers
International Journal for Quality in Health Care13 papers
Annals of Internal Medicine12 papers
BMJ9 papers
Journal of Patient Safety8 papers
Search strings to copy
Written for databases that accept Boolean operators (Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, PubMed, EBSCO). Quotation marks keep a phrase together, an asterisk stands in for the end of a word, and OR groups go in brackets. British and American spellings are written out with OR rather than covered by a single-character wildcard, because those wildcards differ between databases: PubMed’s help page documents the asterisk only, and asks for at least four characters before it. Limit the search to title and abstract first; widen it only if you get too little. Our guide to starting a literature review covers how to record what you searched.
Safety culture and adverse events
("patient safety culture" OR "safety climate") AND ("adverse event*" OR incident* OR error*) AND (hospital* OR nurs*)
Staffing, fatigue and safety
("patient safety" OR "medication error*") AND (staffing OR fatigue OR "working hours" OR burnout OR workload) AND (nurs*)
Teamwork and communication
("patient safety") AND (teamwork OR communication OR handover OR handoff OR "psychological safety")
Explore patient safety in Wonders →Opens Wonders on this question. Once you are signed in it becomes a project with suggested sub-topics and keywords you can edit before searching. The trial is 14 days.
Sub-topics to narrow into
A thesis-sized question usually sits inside one of these, combined with a population or a setting.
Safety culture
Nieva and Sorra (2003) for the concept; Azyabi, Karwowski and Davahli (2021) review assessment tools; Vikan et al. (2023) map 34 studies of culture against adverse events.
Human factors and systems
The SEIPS model (Carayon et al., 2006) and the Swiss cheese model as explained by Wiegmann et al. (2022).
Longtin et al. (2010) on patient participation; Ocloo et al. (2021) on involvement across health and social care.
Second victims
Vanhaecht et al. (2022) offer a consensus definition of clinicians affected by incidents.
How to cite these papers
Every paper above has a DOI, a part of the reference that is easy to leave out. Here is one of them, “Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: a review of the literature” (2009), in the two styles students ask about most:
APA 7th edition
Manser, T. (2009). Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: A review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 53(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x
MLA 9th edition
Manser, T. “Teamwork and Patient Safety in Dynamic Domains of Healthcare: A Review of the Literature.” Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, vol. 53, no. 2, 2009, pp. 143–51, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x.
Check the details against the article itself before you submit: databases, including the one behind this page, sometimes carry the online-first year rather than the volume year. Full rules and more examples are in our guides to APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, Vancouver and ABNT, with the rest in the citation guides. You can also format a reference from its DOI with our free citation tools.
Frequently asked questions
Why is To Err Is Human not in this list?
Because this page lists works with the words patient safety in the title, and its title is To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. It does have a DOI. The National Academies Press gives the citation as Institute of Medicine, 2000, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/9728. Note the year: the publisher's own record and suggested citation say 2000, so use that rather than the 1999 you will see in some reference lists.
What is patient safety culture and how is it measured?
It is the organisational culture side of safety — Nieva and Sorra (2003) argue that healthcare organisations have to transform their culture to improve patient safety, and set out safety culture assessment as the tool for doing it. In practice it is measured with staff surveys. Azyabi, Karwowski and Davahli (2021) review the instruments used in hospitals and name teamwork, organisational and behavioural learning, error reporting, safety awareness, demographics, work experience and staffing levels among the factors that shape the scores. Say which instrument you used; the scores are not interchangeable.
What are good patient safety topics for a nursing thesis?
Questions where nursing work conditions meet a measurable outcome work well: fatigue and errors (Cho and Steege, 2021), nurse competence and safety culture (Abu Zaitoun et al., 2023), or interprofessional collaboration as a mediator between work environment and safety (Labrague et al., 2022).
How this page was made
The lists come from OpenAlex, an open index of scholarly works whose data are published under a CC0 licence, queried on September 21, 2026 for works whose title matches "patient safety". Only works with a DOI are listed. Each one was checked against the publisher’s own record at Crossref or DataCite (title, year, first author, journal, volume and pages), and in three cases, where the publisher deposited no byline, against PubMed; anything OpenAlex or Crossref flags as retracted was left out, and an editor took out results that matched the words but not the subject. Citation counts are OpenAlex’s on that date and are usually lower than Google Scholar’s, which counts more kinds of document. Ranking by citations tells you what a field has relied on, not what is correct; several heavily cited papers on any topic are cited because later work disputes them. Books without a DOI are missing, which matters in fields where the founding text is a book.