ArticleQuality & safety in health care2004
Awareness and analysis of a significant event by general practitioners: a cross sectional survey.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing the Effectiveness of Significant Event Analysis: Exploring Personal Impact and Applying Systems Thinking in Primary Care.The Journal of continuing education in the health professions · 2016Article
- Patient safety improvement programmes for primary care. Review of a Delphi procedure and pilot studies by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.The European journal of general practice · 2015Article
- Development and testing of an assessment instrument for the formative peer review of significant event analyses.Quality & safety in health care · 2007Article
- A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and educational peer assessment.Quality & safety in health care · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) were aware of a recent significant event and whether a structured analysis of this event was undertaken to minimise the perceived risk of recurrence.
designCross sectional survey using a postal questionnaire.
settingGreater Glasgow primary care trust.
participants466 principals in general practice from 188 surgeries.
main outcome measuresGPs' self-reported personal and practice characteristics, awareness of a recent significant event, participation in the structured analysis of the identified significant event, perceived chance of recurrence, forums for discussing and analysing significant events, and levels of primary care team involvement.
resultsFour hundred and sixty six GPs (76%) responded to the survey. GPs from single handed practices were less likely to respond than those in multi-partner training and non-training practices. 401 (86%) reported being aware of a recent significant event; lack of awareness was clearly associated with GPs from non-training practices. 219 (55%) had performed all the necessary stages of a structured analysis (as determined by the authors) of the significant event. GPs from training practices were more likely to report participation in the structured analysis of the recent event, to perceive the chance of this event recurring as "nil" or "very low", and to report significant event discussions taking place.
conclusionsMost GPs were aware of a recent significant event and participated in the structured analysis of this event. The wider primary care team participated in the analysis process where GPs considered this involvement relevant. There is variation in the depth of and approach to significant event analysis within general practice, which may have implications for the application of the technique as part of the NHS quality agenda.
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.