ArticleQuality & safety in health care2005
A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and educational peer assessment.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcome-based simulation training for ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: clinical impact on preventing mechanical complications.BMC medical education · 2025Observational
- Article
- 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 skills in primary care: a national survey of GP educators.BMC family practice · 2014Article
- Can the theoretical domains framework account for the implementation of clinical quality interventions?BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in a peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal.BMC medical education · 2012Article
- A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Verifying appraisal evidence using feedback from trained peers: views and experiences of Scottish GP appraisers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
- Development and testing of an assessment instrument for the formative peer review of significant event analyses.Quality & safety in health care · 2007Article
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 explore the influences and perceived benefits behind general practitioners' willingness to participate in significant event analysis (SEA) and educational peer assessment.
designQualitative analysis of focus group transcripts.
settingGreater Glasgow Primary Care Trust.
participantsTwo focus group sessions involving 21 principals in general practice (GPs).
main outcome measuresGPs' perceptions of the reasons for and benefits of participating in SEA and associated educational peer assessment.
resultsPressure from accreditation bodies and regulatory authorities makes SEA compulsory for most participants who believe more in-depth event analyses are undertaken as a result. Some believed SEA was not an onerous activity while others argued that this depended on the complexity of the event. SEA that is linked to a complaint investigation may provide credible evidence to patients that their complaint is taken seriously. Writing up an event analysis is viewed as an educational process and may act as a form of personal catharsis for some. Event analyses are submitted for peer assessment for educational reward but are highly selective because of concerns about confidentiality, litigation, or professional embarrassment. Most participants disregard the opportunities to learn from "positive" significant events in favour of problem ones. Peer assessment is valued because there is a perception that it enhances knowledge of the SEA technique and the validity of event analyses, which participants find reassuring.
conclusionsThis small study reports mainly positive feedback from a select group of GPs on the merits of SEA and peer assessment.
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.