Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27583996›Full record

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.

Paul Bowie, Elaine McNaughton, David Bruce, Deirdre Holly, Eleanor Forrest, Marion Macleod, Susan Kennedy, Ailsa Power, Denis Toppin, Irene Black and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Development and Validation of the Systems Thinking Scale.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

20 authors.

Paul BowieDr. Bowie: Medical Directorate, Programme Director, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, and Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom. Ms. McNaughton: Medical Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Mr. Bruce: Medical Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ms. Holly: Psychology Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ms. Forrest: Independent Consultant Ergonomist, BrightHF, Glasgow, United Kingdom. Ms. Macleod: Medical Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ms. Kennedy: Medical Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Dr. Power: Pharmacy Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Mr. Toppin: Dental Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ms. Black: Dental Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Dr. Pooley: Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ms. Taylor: Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Dr. Swanson: Psychology Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Dr. Kelly: Medical Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ms. Ferguson: Medical Directorate, Primary Care Development Group, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ms. Stirling: Medical Directorate, Primary Care D
Elaine McNaughton
David Bruce
Deirdre Holly
Eleanor Forrest
Marion Macleod
Susan Kennedy
Ailsa Power
Denis Toppin
Irene Black
Janet Pooley
Audrey Taylor
Vivien Swanson
Moya Kelly
Julie Ferguson
Suzanne Stirling
Judy Wakeling
Angela Inglis
John McKay
Joan Sargeant

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Systems AnalysisTask Performance and AnalysisThinkingAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareScotlandSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27583996
PMCPMC5063067

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.