Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013
Adverse events recorded in English primary care: observational study using the General Practice Research Database.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of adverse drug reactions in the primary care setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.PLoS medicine · 2015Guideline
- Multimorbidity and Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Patient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting survey.PloS one · 2017Trial
- Compensation claims for chiropractic in Denmark 2013-2022.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Comparative Effectiveness and Outcomes of Nebivolol Versus Other Beta Blockers in Patients With Hypertension: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Exploring the association of adverse drug reactions with medication adherence and quality of life among hypertensive patients: a cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Prevalence of cardiovascular drug-related adverse drug reactions consultations in UK primary care: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Impact of ACEIs and ARBs-related adverse drug reaction on patients' clinical outcomes: a cohort study in UK primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Statin-related adverse drug reactions in UK primary care consultations: A retrospective cohort study to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review.BMJ quality & safety · 2021Article
- Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.BMJ open · 2021Article
- [Avoidable adverse events in primary care. Retrospective cohort study to determine their frequency and severity].Atencion primaria · 2020Article
- Article
- Adverse events recording in electronic health record systems in primary care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Sources of unsafe primary care for older adults: a mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incident reports.Age and ageing · 2017Article
- The Second Victim Phenomenon After a Clinical Error: The Design and Evaluation of a Website to Reduce Caregivers' Emotional Responses After a Clinical Error.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Linked hospital and primary care database analysis of the impact of short-term complications on recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017Article
- Design and Testing of the Safety Agenda Mobile App for Managing Health Care Managers' Patient Safety Responsibilities.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2016Article
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
Abstract
backgroundMore accurate and recent estimates of adverse events in primary care are necessary to assign resources for improvement of patient safety, while predictors must be identified to ameliorate patient risk.
aimTo determine the incidence of recorded iatrogenic harm in general practice and identify risk factors for these adverse events. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional sample of 74,763 patients at 457 English general practices between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2008, obtained from the General Practice Research Database.
methodPatient age at study entry, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, practice region, duration registered at practice, continuity of care, comorbidities, and health service use were extracted from the data. Adverse events were defined by Read Codes for complications of care (Chapters S, T, and U). Crude and adjusted analyses were performed by Poisson regression, using generalised estimating equations.
resultsThe incidence was 6.0 adverse events per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.74 to 6.27), equivalent to eight adverse events per 10,000 consultations (n = 2,540,877). After adjustment, patients aged 65-84 years (risk ratio [RR] = 5.62, 95% CI = 4.58 to 6.91; P<0.001), with the most consultations (RR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.60 to 2.86; P<0.001), five or more emergency admissions (RR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.60; P<0.001), or the most diseases according to expanded diagnosis clusters (RR = 8.46, 95% CI = 5.68 to 12.6; P<0.001) were at greater risk of adverse events. Patients registered at their practice for the longest periods of time were less at risk of an adverse event (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.47; P<0.001).
conclusionThe low incidence of recorded adverse events is comparable with other studies. Temporal sequencing of risk factors and case ascertainment would benefit from data triangulation. Future studies may explore whether first adverse events predict future incidents.
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.