Patient safety in primary care: incident reporting and significant event reviews in British general practice

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Rea ◽  
Sarah Griffiths
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Incident Reporting

scholarly journals Patient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting survey

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. e0165455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Michel ◽  
Jean Brami ◽  
Marc Chanelière ◽  
Marion Kret ◽  
Anne Mosnier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Incident Reporting ◽  
Patient Safety Incidents

scholarly journals Using the electronic health record to build a culture of practice safety: evaluating the implementation of trigger tools in one general practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (669) ◽  
pp. e279-e285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Margham ◽  
Natalie Symes ◽  
Sally A Hull
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
At Risk ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Case Review ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Barriers To Implementation ◽  
Narrative Evaluation

BackgroundIdentifying patients at risk of harm in general practice is challenging for busy clinicians. In UK primary care, trigger tools and case note reviews are mainly used to identify rates of harm in sample populations.AimThis study explores how adaptions to existing trigger tool methodology can identify patient safety events and engage clinicians in ongoing reflective work around safety.Design and settingMixed-method quantitative and narrative evaluation using thematic analysis in a single East London training practice.MethodThe project team developed and tested five trigger searches, supported by Excel worksheets to guide the case review process. Project evaluation included summary statistics of completed worksheets and a qualitative review focused on ease of use, barriers to implementation, and perception of value to clinicians.ResultsTrigger searches identified 204 patients for GP review. Overall, 117 (57%) of cases were reviewed and 62 (53%) of these cases had patient safety events identified. These were usually incidents of omission, including failure to monitor or review. Key themes from interviews with practice members included the fact that GPs’ work is generally reactive and GPs welcomed an approach that identified patients who were ‘under the radar’ of safety. All GPs expressed concern that the tool might identify too many patients at risk of harm, placing further demands on their time.ConclusionElectronic trigger tools can identify patients for review in domains of clinical risk for primary care. The high yield of safety events engaged clinicians and provided validation of the need for routine safety checks.

scholarly journals Physician factors associated with increased risk for complaints in primary care emergency services: a case – control study

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Svein Zander Bratland ◽  
Valborg Baste ◽  
Knut Steen ◽  
Esperanza Diaz ◽  
Svein Gjelstad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Emergency Services ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Organizational Factors ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Patient Safety Incidents

Abstract Background Patient safety incidents defined as any unintended or unexpected incident that could have or were judged to have led to patient harm, are reported as relatively common. In this study patient complaints have been used as an indicator to uncover the occurrence of patient safety incidents in primary care emergency units (PCEUs) in Norway. Methods Ten PCEUs in major cities and rural parts of Norway participated. These units cover one third of the Norwegian population. A case-control design was applied. The case was the physician that evoked a complaint. The controls were three randomly chosen physicians from the same PCEU as the physician having evoked the complaint. The following variables regarding the physicians were chosen: gender, citizenship at, and years after authorization as physician, and specialty in general practice. The magnitude of patient contact was defined as the workload at the PCEU. The physicians’ characteristics and workload were extracted from the medical records from the fourteen-day period prior to the consultation that elicited the complaint. The rest of the variables were then obtained from the Norwegian physician position register. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratio for complaints both unadjusted and adjusted for the independent variables. The data were analyzed using SPSS (Version25) and STATA. Results A total of 78 cases and 217 controls were included during 18 months (September 1st 2015 till March 1st 2017). The risk of evoking a complaint was significantly higher for physicians without specialty in general practice, and lower for those with medium low and medium high workload compared to physicians with no duty during the fourteen-day period prior to the index consultation. The limited strength of the study did not make it possible to assess any correlation between workload and the other variables (physician’s gender, seniority and citizenship at time of authorization). Conclusions Continuous medical training and achieving the specialty in general practice were decisively associated with a reduced risk for complaints in primary care emergency services. Future research should focus on elements promoting quality of care such as continuing education, duty rosters and other structural and organizational factors.

scholarly journals Development of the Prototype Concise Safe Systems Checklist Tool for General Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian J Litchfield ◽  
Rachel Spencer ◽  
Brian Bell ◽  
Anthony Avery ◽  
Katherine Perryman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Safety Issues

Abstract Background In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. Methods An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews.Results In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. Conclusions As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

scholarly journals The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial)

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (13) ◽  
pp. 1-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L Campbell ◽  
Emily Fletcher ◽  
Nicky Britten ◽  
Colin Green ◽  
Tim Holt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Telephone Triage ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundTelephone triage is proposed as a method of managing increasing demand for primary care. Previous studies have involved small samples in limited settings, and focused on nurse roles. Evidence is limited regarding the impact on primary care workload, costs, and patient safety and experience when triage is used to manage patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice.ObjectivesIn comparison with usual care (UC), to assess the impact of GP-led telephone triage (GPT) and nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage (NT) on primary care workload and cost, patient experience of care, and patient safety and health status for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, incorporating economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation.SettingGeneral practices (n = 42) in four regions of England, UK (Devon, Bristol/Somerset, Warwickshire/Coventry, Norfolk/Suffolk).ParticipantsPatients requesting same-day consultations.InterventionsPractices were randomised to GPT, NT or UC. Data collection was not blinded; however, analysis was conducted by a statistician blinded to practice allocation.Main outcome measuresPrimary – primary care contacts [general practice, out-of-hours primary care, accident and emergency (A&E) and walk-in centre attendances] in the 28 days following the index consultation request. Secondary – resource use and costs, patient safety (deaths and emergency hospital admissions within 7 days of index request, and A&E attendance within 28 days), health status and experience of care.ResultsOf 20,990 eligible randomised patients (UCn = 7283; GPTn = 6695; NTn = 7012), primary outcome data were analysed for 16,211 patients (UCn = 5572; GPTn = 5171; NTn = 5468). Compared with UC, GPT and NT increased primary outcome contacts (over 28-day follow-up) by 33% [rate ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.36] and 48% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.52), respectively. Compared with GPT, NT was associated with a marginal increase in primary outcome contacts by 4% (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Triage was associated with a redistribution of primary care contacts. Although GPT, compared with UC, increased the rate of overall GP contacts (face to face and telephone) over the 28 days by 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.50), GP face-to-face contacts were reduced by 39% (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69). NT reduced the rate of overall GP contacts by 16% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and GP face-to-face contacts by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), whereas nurse contacts increased. The increased rate of primary care contacts in triage arms is largely attributable to increased telephone contacts. Estimated overall patient–clinician contact time on the index day increased in triage (GPT = 10.3 minutes; NT = 14.8 minutes; UC = 9.6 minutes), although patterns of clinician use varied between arms. Taking account of both the pattern and duration of primary outcome contacts, overall costs over the 28-day follow-up were similar in all three arms (approximately £75 per patient). Triage appeared safe, and no differences in patient health status were observed. NT was somewhat less acceptable to patients than GPT or UC. The process evaluation identified the complexity associated with introducing triage but found no consistency across practices about what works and what does not work when implementing it.ConclusionsIntroducing GPT or NT was associated with a redistribution of primary care workload for patients requesting same-day consultations, and at similar cost to UC. Although triage seemed to be safe, investigation of the circumstances of a larger number of deaths or admissions after triage might be warranted, and monitoring of these events is necessary as triage is implemented.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Effects of patient safety culture interventions on incident reporting in general practice: a cluster randomised trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (634) ◽  
pp. e319-e329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha J Verbakel ◽  
Maaike Langelaan ◽  
Theo JM Verheij ◽  
Cordula Wagner ◽  
Dorien LM Zwart
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Safety Culture ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Patient Safety Culture ◽  
Incident Reporting ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised

scholarly journals Exploring the feasibility of patient safety huddles in general practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Panayiotou ◽  
Charlotte Higgs ◽  
Robbie Foy
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Care Structure ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Current Context ◽  
General Practices

Abstract Background: Patient safety is a key priority for healthcare systems. Patient safety huddles have been advocated as a way to improve safety. We explored the feasibility of huddles in general practice. Methods: We invited all general practices in West Yorkshire to complete an online survey and interviewed practice staff. Results: Thirty-four out of 306 practices (11.1%) responded to our survey. Of these, 22 practices (64.7%) reported having breaks for staff to meet and eight (23.5%) reported no longer having breaks in their practices. Seven interviewees identified several barriers to safety huddles including time and current culture; individuals felt meetings or breaks would not be easily integrated into current primary care structure. Discussion: Despite their initial promise, there are major challenges to introducing patient safety huddles within the current context of UK general practice. General practice staff may need more convincing of potential benefits.

scholarly journals Online patient feedback as a measure of quality in primary care: a multimethod study using correlation and qualitative analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e031820
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Boylan ◽  
Amadea Turk ◽  
Michelle Helena van Velthoven ◽  
John Powell
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Patient Feedback ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Online Feedback ◽  
Potential Use ◽  
Insight Into

ObjectivesTo ascertain the relationship between online patient feedback and the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and the Friends and Family Test (FFT). To consider the potential benefit it may add by describing the content of public reviews found on NHS Choices for all general practices in one Clinical Commissioning Group in England.DesignMultimethod study using correlation and thematic analysis.Setting1396 public online reviews and ratings on NHS Choices for all General Practices (n=70) in Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group in England.ResultsSignificant moderate correlations were found between the online patient feedback and the GPPS and the FFT. Three themes were developed through the qualitative analysis: (1) online feedback largely provides positive reinforcement for practice staff; (2) online feedback is used as a platform for suggesting service organisation and delivery improvements; (3) online feedback can be a source of insight into patients’ expectations of care. These themes illustrate the wide range of topics commented on by patients, including their medical care, relationships with various members of staff, practice facilities, amenities and services in primary care settings.ConclusionsThis multimethod study demonstrates that online feedback found on NHS Choices is significantly correlated with established measures of quality in primary care. This suggests it has a potential use in understanding patient experience and satisfaction, and a potential use in quality improvement and patient safety. The qualitative analysis shows that this form of feedback contains helpful information about patients’ experiences of general practice that provide insight into issues of quality and patient safety relevant to primary care. Health providers should offer patients multiple ways of offering feedback, including online, and should have systems in place to respond to and act on this feedback.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document