SynthesisBMC family practice2006
What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception.
Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review.The European journal of general practice · 2018Pooled it
- Ambulatory Medication Safety in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMPooled it
- Human Healthcare and Its Pharmacy Component from a Safety Point of View.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Safety work and risk management as burdens of treatment in primary care: insights from a focused ethnographic study of patients with multimorbidity.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Does the perception of severity of medical error differ between varying levels of clinical seniority?Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Article
- Attitudes of dental professional staff and auxiliaries in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, toward disclosure of medical errors.The Saudi dental journal · 2017Article
- Trust, temporality and systems: how do patients understand patient safety in primary care? A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016Article
- A research agenda on patient safety in primary care. Recommendations by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.The European journal of general practice · 2015Article
- Disclosure of Medical Errors in Oman: Public preferences and perceptions of current practice.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2015Article
- Tools for primary care patient safety: a narrative review.BMC family practice · 2014Review
- Patient safety in primary care: a survey of general practitioners in The Netherlands.BMC health services research · 2010Article
- Towards an International Classification for Patient Safety: key concepts and terms.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2009Article
- Primary care practitioners' views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians are being asked to report errors from primary care, but little is known about how they apply the term "error." This study qualitatively assesses the relationship between the variety of error definitions found in the medical literature and physicians' assessments of whether an error occurred in a series of clinical scenarios.
methodsA systematic literature review and pilot survey results were analyzed qualitatively to search for insights into what may affect the use of the term error. The National Library of Medicine was systematically searched for medical error definitions. Survey participants were a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and a selected sample of family physician patient safety "experts." A survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios with problems (wrong test performed, abnormal result not followed-up, abnormal result overlooked, blood tube broken and missing scan results) was sent by mail to AAFP members and by e-mail to the experts. Physicians were asked to judge if an error occurred. A qualitative analysis was performed via "immersion and crystallization" of emergent insights from the collected data.
resultsWhile one definition, that originated by James Reason, predominated the literature search, we found 25 different definitions for error in the medical literature. Surveys were returned by 28.5% of 1000 AAFP members and 92% of 25 experts. Of the 5 scenarios, 100% felt overlooking an abnormal result was an error. For other scenarios there was less agreement (experts and AAFP members, respectively agreeing an error occurred): 100 and 87% when the wrong test was performed, 96 and 87% when an abnormal test was not followed up, 74 and 62% when scan results were not available during a patient visit, and 57 and 47% when a blood tube was broken. Through qualitative analysis, we found that three areas may affect how physicians make decisions about error: the process that occurred vs. the outcome that occurred, rare vs. common occurrences and system vs. individual responsibility.
conclusionThere is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an error both in the medical literature and in decision making by family physicians. These potential areas of confusion need further study.
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.