ArticleThe Journal of continuing education in the health professions2016
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Significant Event Analysis: Exploring Personal Impact and Applying Systems Thinking in Primary Care.
Article in The Journal of continuing education in the health professions, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-quality primary healthcare: addressing the challenges here and now.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026Article
- Delphi analysis of how the practice team should organise event analysis in primary care.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Is It Still Time for Safety Walkaround? Pilot Project Proposing a New Model and a Review of the Methodology.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Preliminary adaptation of the systems thinking for everyday work cue card set in a US healthcare system: a pragmatic and participatory co-design approach.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Frontiers in human factors: embedding specialists in multi-disciplinary efforts to improve healthcare.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021Article
- Students' Experiences in Suddenly Transformed Living and Educational Environments by COVID-19.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of the Systems Thinking Scale.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Development and application of 'systems thinking' principles for quality improvement.BMJ open quality · 2020Article
- Never Events in UK General Practice: A Survey of the Views of General Practitioners on Their Frequency and Acceptability as a Safety Improvement Approach.Journal of patient safety · 2019Article
- Article
- Influences on the adoption of patient safety innovation in primary care: a qualitative exploration of staff perspectives.BMC family practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSignificant event analysis (SEA) is well established in many primary care settings but can be poorly implemented. Reasons include the emotional impact on clinicians and limited knowledge of systems thinking in establishing why events happen and formulating improvements. To enhance SEA effectiveness, we developed and tested "guiding tools" based on human factors principles.
methodsMixed-methods development of guiding tools (Personal Booklet-to help with emotional demands and apply a human factors analysis at the individual level; Desk Pad-to guide a team-based systems analysis; and a written Report Format) by a multiprofessional "expert" group and testing with Scottish primary care practitioners who submitted completed enhanced SEA reports. Evaluation data were collected through questionnaire, telephone interviews, and thematic analysis of SEA reports.
resultsOverall, 149/240 care practitioners tested the guiding tools and submitted completed SEA reports (62.1%). Reported understanding of how to undertake SEA improved postintervention (P < .001), while most agreed that the Personal Booklet was practical (88/123, 71.5%) and relevant to dealing with related emotions (93/123, 75.6%). The Desk Pad tool helped focus the SEA on systems issues (85/123, 69.1%), while most found the Report Format clear (94/123, 76.4%) and would recommend it (88/123, 71.5%). Most SEA reports adopted a systems approach to analyses (125/149, 83.9%), care improvement (74/149, 49.7), or planned actions (42/149, 28.2%). DISCUSSION: Applying human factors principles to SEA potentially enables care teams to gain a systems-based understanding of why things go wrong, which may help with related emotional demands and with more effective learning and improvement.
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.