ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Patient reports of preventable problems and harms in primary health care.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 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
71 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Ambulatory Medication Safety in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMPooled it
- Improving Diagnosis: Evaluation of Diagnostic Experiences Classified as Problems, Mistakes, or Both by Patients and Care Partners From a Nationally Representative Survey.Medical care · 2026Article
- Invisible harm in patient safety: a framework and definition for preventable psychological harm in cancer care.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Leveraging LLM to identify missed information in patient-physician communication: improving healthcare service quality.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring sociodemographic disparities in diagnostic problems and mistakes in the quest for diagnostic equity: insights from a national survey of patient experiences.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Safety-netting strategies for primary and emergency care: a codesign study with patients, carers and clinicians in Sweden.BMJ open · 2024Article
- When the Trial Ends: The Case for Post-Trial Provisions in Clinical Psychedelic Research.Neuroethics · 2024Article
- A narrative journey into the borderland of patient safety: Toward an expanded, relational concept of safety.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2023Article
- Primary care teams' reported actions to improve medication safety: a qualitative study with insights in high reliability organising.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Patient Safety and the Question of Dignitary Harms.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2023Article
- Article
- Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Capturing Patients' Perspectives on Medication Safety: The Development of a Patient-Centered Medication Safety Framework.Journal of patient safety · 2020Article
- Scoping review of patients' attitudes about their role and behaviours to ensure safe care at the direct care level.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Multimorbidity and patient-reported diagnostic errors in the primary care setting: multicentre cross-sectional study in Japan.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Lifetime Prevalence and Correlates of Patient-Perceived Medical Errors Experienced in the U.S. Ambulatory Setting: A Population-Based Study.Health equity · 2020Article
- Can patients contribute to safer care in meetings with healthcare professionals? A crossBMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Adverse Events in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis Receiving Long-Term Biological Agents in a Real-Life Setting.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite recent attention given to medical errors, little is known about the kinds and importance of medical errors in primary care. The principal aims of this study were to develop patient-focused typologies of medical errors and harms in primary care settings and to discern which medical errors and harms seem to be the most important.
methodsThirty-eight in-depth anonymous interviews of adults from rural, suburban, and urban locales in Virginia and Ohio were conducted to solicit stories of preventable problems with primary health care that led to physical or psychological harm. Transcriptions were analyzed to identify, name, and organize the stories of errors and harms.
resultsThe 38 narratives described 221 problematic incidents that predominantly involved breakdowns in the clinician-patient relationship (n = 82, 37%) and access to clinicians (n = 63, 29%). There were several reports of perceived racism. The incidents were linked to 170 reported harms, 70% of which were psychological, including anger, frustration, belittlement, and loss of relationship and trust in one's clinician. Physical harms accounted for 23% of the total and included pain, bruising, worsening medical condition, and adverse drug reactions. DISCUSSION: The errors reported by interviewed patients suggest that breakdowns in access to and relationships with clinicians may be more prominent medical errors than are technical errors in diagnosis and treatment. Patients were more likely to report being harmed psychologically and emotionally, suggesting that the current preoccupation of the patient safety movement with adverse drug events and surgical mishaps could overlook other patient priorities.
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.