ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018
Using the electronic health record to build a culture of practice safety: evaluating the implementation of trigger tools in one general practice.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Using chronic kidney disease trigger tools for safety and learning: a qualitative evaluation in East London primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Quality improvement of prescribing safety: a pilot study in primary care using UK electronic health records.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- The role of medical data in efficient patient care delivery: a review.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2019Review
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
backgroundIdentifying patients at risk of harm in general practice is challenging for busy clinicians. In UK primary care, trigger tools and case note reviews are mainly used to identify rates of harm in sample populations.
aimThis study explores how adaptions to existing trigger tool methodology can identify patient safety events and engage clinicians in ongoing reflective work around safety. DESIGN AND
settingMixed-method quantitative and narrative evaluation using thematic analysis in a single East London training practice.
methodThe project team developed and tested five trigger searches, supported by Excel worksheets to guide the case review process. Project evaluation included summary statistics of completed worksheets and a qualitative review focused on ease of use, barriers to implementation, and perception of value to clinicians.
resultsTrigger searches identified 204 patients for GP review. Overall, 117 (57%) of cases were reviewed and 62 (53%) of these cases had patient safety events identified. These were usually incidents of omission, including failure to monitor or review. Key themes from interviews with practice members included the fact that GPs' work is generally reactive and GPs welcomed an approach that identified patients who were 'under the radar' of safety. All GPs expressed concern that the tool might identify too many patients at risk of harm, placing further demands on their time.
conclusionElectronic trigger tools can identify patients for review in domains of clinical risk for primary care. The high yield of safety events engaged clinicians and provided validation of the need for routine safety checks.
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.