Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24686882›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014

Identification of an updated set of prescribing--safety indicators for GPs.

Rachel Spencer, Brian Bell, Anthony J Avery, Gill Gookey, Stephen M Campbell, Royal College of General Practitioners

Abstract readConsensus StatementSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Rachel SpencerDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.
Brian Bell
Anthony J Avery
Gill Gookey
Stephen M Campbell
Royal College of General Practitioners

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking.

aimTo identify and update a set of prescribing-safety indicators for assessing the safety of prescribing in general practice, and to estimate the risk of harm to patients associated with each indicator. DESIGN AND

settingRAND/UCLA consensus development of indicators in UK general practice.

methodPrescribing indicators were identified from a systematic review and previous consensus exercise. The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to further identify and develop the indicators with an electronic-Delphi method used to rate the risk associated with them. Twelve GPs from all the countries of the UK participated in the RAND exercise, with 11 GPs rating risk using the electronic-Delphi approach.

resultsFifty-six prescribing-safety indicators were considered appropriate for inclusion (overall panel median rating of 7-9, with agreement). These indicators cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic indications, hazardous drug-drug combinations and inadequate laboratory test monitoring. Twenty-three (41%) of these indicators were considered high risk or extreme risk by 80% or more of the participants.

conclusionThis study identified a set of 56 indicators that were considered, by a panel of GPs, to be appropriate for assessing the safety of GP prescribing. Twenty-three of these indicators were considered to be associated with high or extreme risk to patients and should be the focus of efforts to improve patient safety.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareGeneral PracticePatient SafetyQuality Indicators, Health CareDelphi TechniqueHumansMedication ErrorsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareUnited Kingdomambulatory careconsensusgeneral practicemedication errorspatient safetyprimary health carequality indicators

Identifiers

PMID24686882
PMCPMC3964450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.