Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29885654›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

'The big buzz': a qualitative study of how safe care is perceived, understood and improved in general practice.

Carl de Wet, Paul Bowie, Catherine O'Donnell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Carl de WetMedical Directorate, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK. carl.dewet@health.qld.gov.au.
Paul BowieMedical Directorate, NHS Education for Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Catherine O'DonnellGeneral Practice & Primary Care, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExploring frontline staff perceptions of patient safety is important, because they largely determine how improvement interventions are understood and implemented. However, research evidence in this area is very limited. This study therefore: explores participants' understanding of patient safety as a concept; describes the factors thought to contribute to patient safety incidents (PSIs); and identifies existing improvement actions and potential opportunities for future interventions to help mitigate risks.

methodsA total of 34 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 general practitioners, 12 practice nurses and 11 practice managers in the West of Scotland. The data were thematically analysed.

resultsPatient safety was considered an important and integral part of routine practice. Participants perceived a proportion of PSIs as being inevitable and therefore not preventable. However, there was consensus that most factors contributing to PSIs are amenable to improvement efforts and acknolwedgement that the potential exists for further enhancements in care procedures and systems. Most were aware of, or already using, a wide range of safety improvement tools for this purpose. While the vast majority was able to identify specific, safety-critical areas requiring further action, this was counter-balanced by the reality that additional resources were a decisive requirment.

conclusionThe perceptions of participants in this study are comparable with the international patient safety literature: frontline staff and clinicians are aware of and potentially able to address a wide range of safety threats. However, they require additional resources and support to do so.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PracticeSafety ManagementGeneral PractitionersHealth PersonnelHumansNeeds AssessmentPatient SafetyQuality ImprovementScotlandSocial PerceptionFamily medicineGeneral practicePatient safetyPatient safety incidentsQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID29885654
PMCPMC5994252

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.