ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002
Erring and learning in clinical practice.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study.BMC primary care · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper discusses error type their possible consequences and the doctors who make them. There is no single, all-encompassing typology of medical errors. They are frequently multifactorial in origin and use from the mental processes of individuals; from defects in perception, thinking reasoning planning and interpretation and from failures of team-working omissions and poorly executed actions. They also arise from inadequately designed and operated healthcare systems or procedures. The paper considers error-truth relatedness, the approach of UK courts to medical errors, the learning opportunities which flow from error recognition and the need for personal and professional self awareness of clinical fallibilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12389767PMC1316138What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.