ArticleQuality & safety in health care2007
Confidential reporting of patient safety events in primary care: results from a multilevel classification of cognitive and system factors.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety in primary care (SAP-C): a randomised, controlled feasibility study in two different healthcare systems.BMC family practice · 2019Trial
- Patient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting survey.PloS one · 2017Trial
- Article
- A text mining approach to categorize patient safety event reports by medication error type.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Measuring cognitively demanding activities in pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic errors in Dentistry, opinions of egyptian dental teaching staff, a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Threats to safe transitions from hospital to home: a consensus study in North West London primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Review
- 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
- Perceived safety climate in Irish primary care settings-a comparison with Scotland and England.The European journal of general practice · 2018Article
- Safety climate in English general practices: workload pressures may compromise safety.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2016Article
- A cross-sectional mixed methods study protocol to generate learning from patient safety incidents reported from general practice.BMJ open · 2015Article
- The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine.BMJ quality & safety · 2013Article
- A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Refocusing the lens: patient safety in ambulatory chronic disease care.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo classify events of actual or potential harm to primary care patients using a multilevel taxonomy of cognitive and system factors.
methodsObservational study of patient safety events obtained via a confidential but not anonymous reporting system. Reports were followed up with interviews where necessary. Events were analysed for their causes and contributing factors using causal trees and were classified using the taxonomy. Five general medical practices in the West Midlands were selected to represent a range of sizes and types of patient population. All practice staff were invited to report patient safety events. Main outcome measures were frequencies of clinical types of events reported, cognitive types of error, types of detection and contributing factors; and relationship between types of error, practice size, patient consequences and detection.
results78 reports were relevant to patient safety and analysable. They included 21 (27%) adverse events and 50 (64%) near misses. 16.7% (13/71) had serious patient consequences, including one death. 75.7% (59/78) had the potential for serious patient harm. Most reports referred to administrative errors (25.6%, 20/78). 60% (47/78) of the reports contained sufficient information to characterise cognition: "situation assessment and response selection" was involved in 45% (21/47) of these reports and was often linked to serious potential consequences. The most frequent contributing factor was work organisation, identified in 71 events. This included excessive task demands (47%, 37/71) and fragmentation (28%, 22/71).
conclusionsEven though most reported events were near misses, events with serious patient consequences were also reported. Failures in situation assessment and response selection, a cognitive activity that occurs in both clinical and administrative tasks, was related to serious potential harm.
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.