ArticleBMJ open2018
Frequency and nature of potentially harmful preventable problems in primary care from the patient's perspective with clinician review: a population-level survey in Great Britain.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' Perceptions of Safety in Primary Healthcare Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Qassim Region of Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Involving patients and carers in patient safety in primary care: A qualitative study of a co-designed patient safety guide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Family Caregivers' Experiences of Preventing Harm to Older People during Hospitalization: A Phenomenographic Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Assessing patient experience with patient safety in primary care: development and validation of the ASK-ME-questionnaire.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Developing a patient safety guide for primary care: A co-design approach involving patients, carers and clinicians.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study evaluating a codesigned patient safety guide in primary care.BMJ open · 2021Article
- ASK ME!-Routine measurement of patient experience with patient safety in ambulatory care: A mixed-mode survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- Patient feedback for safety improvement in primary care: results from a feasibility study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Patient safety in ambulatory care from the patient's perspective: a retrospective, representative telephone survey.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the frequency of patient-perceived potentially harmful problems occurring in primary care. To describe the type of problem, patient predictors of perceiving a problem, the primary care service involved, how the problem was discussed and patient suggestions as to how the problem might have been prevented. To describe clinician/public opinions regarding the likelihood that the patient-described scenario is potentially harmful.
designPopulation-level survey.
settingGreat Britain.
participantsA nationally representative sample of 3975 members of the public aged ≥15 years interviewed during April 2016.
main outcome measuresCounts of patient-perceived potentially harmful problems in the last 12 months, descriptions of patient-described scenarios and review by clinicians/members of the public.
results3975 of 3996 participants in a nationally representative survey completed the relevant questions (99.5%). 300 (7.6%; 95% CI 6.7% to 8.4%) of respondents reported experiencing a potentially harmful preventable problem in primary care during the past 12 months and 145 (48%) discussed their concerns within primary care. This did not vary with age, gender or type of service used. A substantial minority (30%) of the patient-perceived problems occurred outside general practice, particularly the dental surgery, walk in clinic, out of hours care and pharmacy. Patients perceiving a potentially harmful preventable problem were eight times more likely to have 'no confidence and trust in primary care' compared with 'yes, definitely' (OR 7.9; 95% CI 5.9 to 10.7) but those who discussed their perceived-problem appeared to maintain higher trust and confidence. Generally, clinicians ranked the patient-described scenarios as unlikely to be potentially harmful.
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of actively soliciting patient's views about preventable harm in primary care as patients frequently perceive potentially harmful preventable problems and make useful suggestions for their prevention. Such engagement may also help to improve confidence and trust in primary care.
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.