ArticleBMC family practice2012
Medical errors in primary care clinics--a cross sectional study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) - Powered Documentation Systems in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical systems · 2025Pooled 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
- Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- The impact of a prescription review and prescriber feedback system on prescribing practices in primary care clinics: a cluster randomised trial.BMC family practice · 2018Trial
- Medication incidents in primary care medicine: protocol of a study by the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System.BMJ open · 2015Trial
- The ethics of listening walls: patient autonomy and consent in the age of ambient clinical AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A data and knowledge cross-level fusion-driven learning framework for detecting missing diagnosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of patient safety culture among healthcare providers in tertiary hospitals in Malaysia-A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Barriers to pharmaceutical care provision in the community and hospital pharmacies of Motta town, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Identifying factors in the provision of intravenous stroke thrombolysis in Malaysia: a multiple case study from the healthcare providers' perspective.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Effects of Combinational Use of Additional Differential Diagnostic Generators on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automated History-Taking System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Opportunities for Diagnostic Improvement Among Pediatric Hospital Readmissions.Hospital pediatrics · 2023Article
- Article
- Diagnostic coding of chronic physical conditions in Irish general practice.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Medical documentation practice and associated factors among health workers at private hospitals in the Amhara region, Ethiopia 2021.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Physician factors associated with medical errors in Norwegian primary care emergency services.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Errors Induced by a Wrong a Priori Diagnosis: A Prospective Randomized Simulator-Based Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Physician factors associated with increased risk for complaints in primary care emergency services: a case - control study.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Regret among primary care physicians: a survey of diagnostic decisions.BMC family practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety is vital in patient care. There is a lack of studies on medical errors in primary care settings. The aim of the study is to determine the extent of diagnostic inaccuracies and management errors in public funded primary care clinics.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors.
resultsThe majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable.
conclusionsThe occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.
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.