ReviewThe European journal of general practice2015
Patient safety and the control of time in primary care: A review of the French tempos framework by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.
Review in The European journal of general practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic errors reported in primary healthcare and emergency departments: A retrospective and descriptive cohort study of 4830 reported cases of preventable harm in Sweden.The European journal of general practice · 2019Article
- Safety analysis over time: seven major changes to adverse event investigation.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Patient safety principles in family medicine residency accreditation standards and curriculum objectives: Implications for primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016Article
- Developing a research agenda for patient safety in primary care. Background, aims and output of the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.The European journal of general practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe tempos framework provides GPs with a flexible and practical guide to reflect on their organization and practices in the analysis of adverse events and supplement existing classification systems. The tempos framework specifies five timescales that need to be managed by physicians: the disease's tempo (unexpected rapid changes, slow reaction to treatment); the office's tempo (day-to-day agenda and interruptions); the patient's tempo (time to express symptoms, compliance, and emotion); the system's tempo (time for appointments, exams, and feedback); and the time to access to knowledge.
objectiveThis paper reviews the tempos framework and two studies that underpin its conceptual development.
methodsTwo databases were used.
resultsThe use of the framework as a mechanism for analysing insurance claims is described. A comparison of using the tempos framework and standard patient safety classifications for analysing insurance claims is also described and showed that the concordance among coders was better for the tempos framework. The tempos framework fits closely with key principles of general practice and has potentially high relevance for analysing a patient's journey and continuity of care. The tempos framework seems most useful for GPs when analysing adverse events in their practice.
conclusionFurther work needs to be done to assess its generalizability and to formally assess its validity and reliability.
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.