Trial reportQuality & safety in health care2002
A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice.
Trial report in Quality & safety in health care, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
100 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 346 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' views of adverse events in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review to assess methods and the content of what patients consider to be adverse events.BMC family practice · 2016Pooled it
- What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception.BMC family practice · 2006Pooled it
- Medication errors in mental healthcare: a systematic review.Quality & safety in health care · 2006Pooled it
- Article
- Uncertainty-aware large language models for explainable disease diagnosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Prospects for AI clinical summarization to reduce the burden of patient chart review.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Review
- Emerging Health Technologies in Long-Term Care and Suppliers' Views on Their Potential to Assist and Support the Workforce.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2023Article
- "The measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice" - insights of the PRICOV-19 study on German general practitioners in times of COVID-19.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Article
- Using Community Detection Techniques to Identify Themes in COVID-19-Related Patient Safety Event Reports.Journal of patient safety · 2022Article
- How did general practices organize care during the COVID-19 pandemic: the protocol of the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study in 38 countries.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Defining Patient Safety Events in Inpatient Psychiatry.Journal of patient safety · 2021Article
- How do patients respond to safety problems in ambulatory care? Results of a retrospective cross-sectional telephone survey.BMJ open · 2021Article
- User redesign, testing and evaluation of the Monitoring Risk and Improving System Safety (MoRISS) checklist for the general practice work environment.BMJ open quality · 2020Article
- A Patient Safety Toolkit for Family Practices.Journal of patient safety · 2020Article
- What Safety Events Are Reported For Ambulatory Care? Analysis of Incident Reports from a Patient Safety Organization.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2020Article
- Health Care Provider Factors Associated with Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Harm.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2020Article
- Patient safety in ambulatory care from the patient's perspective: a retrospective, representative telephone survey.BMJ open · 2020Article
- The associations between query-based and directed health information exchange with potentially avoidable use of health care services.Health services research · 2019Article
- Association of GP wellbeing and burnout with patient safety in UK primary care: a cross-sectional survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a preliminary taxonomy of primary care medical errors.
designQualitative analysis to identify categories of error reported during a randomized controlled trial of computer and paper reporting methods.
settingThe National Network for Family Practice and Primary Care Research.
participantsFamily physicians.
main outcome measuresMedical error category, context, and consequence.
resultsForty two physicians made 344 reports: 284 (82.6%) arose from healthcare systems dysfunction; 46 (13.4%) were errors due to gaps in knowledge or skills; and 14 (4.1%) were reports of adverse events, not errors. The main subcategories were: administrative failure (102; 30.9% of errors), investigation failures (82; 24.8%), treatment delivery lapses (76; 23.0%), miscommunication (19; 5.8%), payment systems problems (4; 1.2%), error in the execution of a clinical task (19; 5.8%), wrong treatment decision (14; 4.2%), and wrong diagnosis (13; 3.9%). Most reports were of errors that were recognized and occurred in reporters' practices. Affected patients ranged in age from 8 months to 100 years, were of both sexes, and represented all major US ethnic groups. Almost half the reports were of events which had adverse consequences. Ten errors resulted in patients being admitted to hospital and one patient died.
conclusionsThis medical error taxonomy, developed from self-reports of errors observed by family physicians during their routine clinical practice, emphasizes problems in healthcare processes and acknowledges medical errors arising from shortfalls in clinical knowledge and skills. Patient safety strategies with most effect in primary care settings need to be broader than the current focus on medication errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.