ArticleQuality & safety in health care2003
Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 154 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimorbidity and Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception.BMC family practice · 2006Pooled it
- Patient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting survey.PloS one · 2017Trial
- Medication incidents in primary care medicine: protocol of a study by the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System.BMJ open · 2015Trial
- Article
- 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
- Prescribing error reporting in primary care: a narrative synthesis systematic review.Integrated healthcare journal · 2020Review
- 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
- Validation of the Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) questionnaire.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Estimation of weight in adults from height: a novel option for a quick bedside technique.International journal of emergency medicine · 2018Article
- Factors contributing to patient safety incidents in primary care: a descriptive analysis of patient safety incidents in a French study using CADYA (categorization of errors in primary care).BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Risk assessment of the emergency processes: Healthcare failure mode and effect analysis.World journal of emergency medicine · 2016Article
- A cross-sectional mixed methods study protocol to generate learning from patient safety incidents reported from general practice.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Participatory design of a preliminary safety checklist for general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
- Risk Assessment of Drug Management Process in Women Surgery Department of Qaem Educational Hospital (QEH) Using HFMEA Method (2013).Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2015Article
- Risk factors for patient-reported medical errors in eleven countries.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Article
- Article
- A new approach to identify, classify and count drug-related events.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
- Clinical errors and medical negligence.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2013Review
- Reasons for not reporting patient safety incidents in general practice: a qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe a classification of errors and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a method for recording staff reported errors in general practice.
designAn iterative process in a pilot practice was used to develop a classification of errors. This was incorporated in an anonymous self-report form which was then used to collect information on errors during June 2002. The acceptability of the reporting process was assessed using a self-completion questionnaire.
settingUK general practice.
participantsTen general practices in the North East of England.
main outcome measuresClassification of errors, frequency of errors, error rates per 1000 appointments, acceptability of the process to participants.
results101 events were used to create an initial error classification. This contained six categories: prescriptions, communication, appointments, equipment, clinical care, and "other" errors. Subsequently, 940 errors were recorded in a single 2 week period from 10 practices, providing additional information. 42% (397/940) were related to prescriptions, although only 6% (22/397) of these were medication errors. Communication errors accounted for 30% (282/940) of errors and clinical errors 3% (24/940). The overall error rate was 75.6/1000 appointments (95% CI 71 to 80). The method of error reporting was found to be acceptable by 68% (36/53) of respondents with only 8% (4/53) finding the process threatening.
conclusionWe have developed a classification of errors and described a practical and acceptable method for reporting them that can be used as part of the process of risk management. Errors are common and, although all have the potential to lead to an adverse event, most are administrative.
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.