# Understanding discrepancies in perceived importance of patient safety measures between patients and healthcare professionals in perioperative care: An exploratory study

## TL;DR

This study explores why patients and healthcare professionals differ in their views on what safety measures matter most during surgery and recovery.

## Contribution

The study identifies communication issues and differing priorities as key reasons for discrepancies in perceived safety measure importance.

## Key findings

- Communication failure is a major issue affecting understanding between patients and healthcare professionals.
- Patients prioritize quality of life and emotional impacts, while professionals focus on technical and system-level outcomes.
- Differences in knowledge and expectations contribute to the discrepancies in importance attributed to safety measures.

## Abstract

Patient safety is a critical concern in perioperative care. This study explores the discrepancies in how patients and healthcare professionals perceive the importance of perioperative patient safety outcome measures, aiming to improve the development of future Core Outcome Sets (COS).

Qualitative exploratory study using focus groups with healthcare professionals and patients involved in the Core Outcome Set for Patient Safety in Perioperative Care. Data were collected through online mini-focus groups and analysed using thematic qualitative text analysis.

Communication failure emerged as the predominant cross-cutting issue across discussions, particularly in relation to discrepancies in expectations, information exchange, and understanding between healthcare professionals and patients. Three primary reasons for discrepancies in attributed importance of indicators were identified: different targets/focus; knowledge gaps; and varying importance placed on the sense of safety. Patients often emphasized subjective experiences, fears, and emotional impacts, leading them to prioritize quality of life indicators and long-term effects. In contrast, healthcare professionals focused on system-level factors and resource limitations, giving greater weight to technical and physiological outcomes.

The study findings underscore the need for a more holistic approach in developing COS, balancing technical medical outcomes with patient-centered quality of life measures.