Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28244631›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017

Identifying patient-centred recommendations for improving patient safety in General Practices in England: a qualitative content analysis of free-text responses using the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire.

Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Lorena Saletti-Cuesta, Sarah P Slight, Jose M Valderas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient Safety Domains in Primary Healthcare: A Systematic Review.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Developing the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS): A Delphi and Think Aloud Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Health Care Provider Factors Associated with Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Harm.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Ignacio Ricci-CabelloNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4725-8274
Lorena Saletti-CuestaNational Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Culture and Society Research and Study Centre (CIECS-CONICET-UNC), Córdoba, Argentina.
Sarah P SlightDivision of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, UK.
Jose M ValderasHealth Services and Policy Research Group, Patient Centred Care, University of Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing interest in identifying strategies to achieve safer primary health-care provision. However, most of the research conducted so far in this area relies on information supplied by health-care providers, and limited attention has been paid to patients' perspectives.

objectiveTo explore patients' experiences and perceptions of patient safety in English general practices with the aim of eliciting patient-centred recommendations for improving patient safety.

methodsThe Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 6736 primary care users registered in 45 English practices. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of responses to seven open-ended items addressing patients' experiences of safety problems, lessons learnt as a result of such experiences and recommendations for safer health care.

resultsA total of 1244 (18.4%) participants returned completed questionnaires. Of those, 678 (54.5%) responded to at least one open-ended question. Two main themes emerged as follows: (i) experiences of safety problems and (ii) good practices and recommendations to improve patient safety in primary care. Most frequent experiences of safety problems were related to appointments, coordination between providers, tests, medication and diagnosis. Patients' responses to these problems included increased patient activation (eg speaking up about concerns with their health care) and avoidance of unnecessary health care. Recommendations for safer health care included improvements in patient-centred communication, continuity of care, timely appointments, technical quality of care, active monitoring, teamwork, health records and practice environment.

conclusionThis study identified a number of patient-centred recommendations for improving patient safety in English general practices.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdolescentAdultAgedAppointments and SchedulesCommunicationContinuity of Patient CareEnglandFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMedical OveruseMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePatient Participationhealth services researchpatient safetyprimary health carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID28244631
PMCPMC5600214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.