Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26339836›Full record

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.

Jean Brami, René Amalberti, Michel Wensing

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Jean Bramia Mission pour la Sécurité du Patient (MSP), Haute Autorité de Santé , Saint Denis la Plaine , France.
René Amalberti
Michel Wensing

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient SafetyPrimary Health CareFranceHumansTime FactorsLINNEAUS collaborationpatient safetyprimary careTime management

Identifiers

PMID26339836
PMCPMC4828602

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.