Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24066842›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2013

The safety netting behaviour of first contact clinicians: a qualitative study.

Caroline H D Jones, Sarah Neill, Monica Lakhanpaul, Damian Roland, Hayley Singlehurst-Mooney, Matthew Thompson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Safety-netting advice documentation in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. SAFETY NETTING CONCEPT IN PRIMARY CARE CONSULTATION.Annals of Ibadan postgraduate medicine · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Factors affecting the documentation of spoken safety-netting advice in routine GP consultations: a cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  20. Safety netting in routine primary care consultations: an observational study using video-recorded UK consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Caroline H D JonesDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, OX2 6GG Oxford, England. caroline.jones@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Sarah Neill
Monica Lakhanpaul
Damian Roland
Hayley Singlehurst-Mooney
Matthew Thompson
University of Northampton · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBInstitute of Child Health · GRUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute illness is common in childhood, and it is difficult for healthcare professionals to distinguish seriously ill children from the vast majority with minor or self-limiting illnesses. Safety netting provides parents with advice on when and where to return if their child deteriorates, and it is widely recommended that parents of acutely sick young children should be given safety netting advice. Yet little is known about how and when this is given. We aimed to understand what safety netting advice first contact clinicians give parents of acutely sick young children, how, when, and why.

methodsThis was a qualitative study. Interviews and focus groups were held with doctors and nurses in a general practice surgery, a District General Hospital emergency department, a paediatric emergency department, and an out-of-hours service. Data were analysed using the method of constant comparison.

resultsSixteen clinicians participated. They described that safety netting advice includes advising parents what to look for, when and where to seek help. How safety netting was delivered and whether it was verbal or written was inconsistent, and no participants described being trained in this area. Safety netting appeared to be rarely documented, and was left to individual preference. Limitations of written materials, and structural barriers to the provision of safety netting, were perceived. Participants described that safety netting was influenced by clinicians' experience, confidence, time and knowledge; and perceived parental anxiety, experience, and competence. Participants noted several limitations to safety netting including not knowing if it has been understood by parents or been effective; parental difficulty interpreting information and desire for face-to-face reassurance; and potential over-reassurance.

conclusionFirst contact clinicians employ a range of safety netting techniques, with inconsistencies within and between organisations. Structural changes, clinician training, and documentation in patient notes may improve safety netting provision. Research is needed into the optimal components of safety netting advice so that clinicians can consistently deliver the most effective advice for parents.

Indexed as

Acute DiseasePatient Education as TopicPractice Patterns, Nurses'Practice Patterns, Physicians'AdultAfter-Hours CareChildEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedParentsPediatric NursingPediatrics

Identifiers

PMID24066842
PMCPMC3849506
OpenAlexW1971138286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.