ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011
Central or local incident reporting? A comparative study in Dutch GP out-of-hours services.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient safety and safety culture in primary health care: a systematic review.BMC family practice · 2018Pooled it
- Improving the governance of patient safety in emergency care: a systematic review of interventions.BMJ open · 2016Pooled it
- Interventions to increase clinical incident reporting in health care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- A multifaceted risk management program to improve the reporting rate of patient safety incidents in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2024Trial
- Patient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting survey.PloS one · 2017Trial
- Assessment of patient safety culture in primary health care in Muscat, Oman: a questionnaire -based survey.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Transitional safety incidents as reported by patients and healthcare professionals in the Netherlands: A descriptive study.The European journal of general practice · 2019Article
- Incident Reporting Behaviours and Associated Factors among Nurses Working in Gondar University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.Scientifica · 2016Article
- A cross-sectional mixed methods study protocol to generate learning from patient safety incidents reported from general practice.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Clinical decision making in a high-risk primary care environment: a qualitative study in the UK.BMJ open · 2012Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentralised incident reporting in a Dutch collaboration of nine out-of-hours services yielded very few incident reports. To improve incident reporting and the awareness of primary caregivers about patient safety issues, a local incident-reporting procedure was implemented.
aimTo compare the number and nature of incident reports collected in a local incident-reporting procedure (intervention) versus the currently used centralised incident-reporting procedure. DESIGN OF STUDY: Quasi experiment.
settingThree GPs' out-of-hours services (OHSs) in the centre of the Netherlands participated over 2 years before and 2 years after the intervention.
methodA local incident-reporting procedure was implemented in OHS1, in which participants were encouraged to report all occurring incidents. A local committee with peers analysed the reported incidents fortnightly in order to initiate improvements if necessary. In OHS2 and OHS3, the current centralised incident-reporting procedure was continued, where incidents were reported to an advisory committee of the board of directors of the OHSs collaboration and were assessed every 2 months. The main outcome measures were the number and nature of incidents reported.
resultsAt baseline, participants reported fewer than 10 incidents per year each. In the follow-up period, the number of incidents reported in OHS1 increased 16-fold compared with the controls. The type of incidents reported did not alter. In the local incident-reporting procedure, improvements were implemented in a shorter time frame, but reports in the centralised incident-reporting procedure led to a more systematic addressing of general and recurring safety problems.
conclusionIt is likely that a local incident-reporting procedure increases the willingness to report and facilitates faster implementation of improvements. In contrast, the central procedure, by collating reports from many settings, seems better at addressing generic and recurring safety issues. The advantages of both approaches should be combined.
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.