SynthesisThe European journal of general practice2018
Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review.
Synthesis in The European journal of general practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Triggers for identifying anticoagulation-associated adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023Pooled it
- How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021Pooled it
- A meta-review of methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021Pooled it
- Electronic charts do not facilitate the recognition of patient hazards by advanced medical students: A randomized controlled study.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Safety in primary care (SAP-C): a randomised, controlled feasibility study in two different healthcare systems.BMC family practice · 2019Trial
- Is primary care a patient-safe setting? Prevalence, severity, nature, and causes of adverse events: numerous and mostly avoidable.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023Article
- Identifying hot spots for harm and blind spots across the care pathway from patient complaints about general practice.Family practice · 2022Article
- Physician factors associated with medical errors in Norwegian primary care emergency services.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of New Tools to Define an Up-to-Date Patient Safety Risk Map: A Primary Care Study Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Medication-related harm in New Zealand general practice: a retrospective records review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Epidemiology of healthcare harm in New Zealand general practice: a retrospective records review study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- [Avoidable adverse events in primary care. Retrospective cohort study to determine their frequency and severity].Atencion primaria · 2020Article
- Physician factors associated with increased risk for complaints in primary care emergency services: a case - control study.BMC family practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited research, and guidance, on how to address safety in general practice proactively.
objectivesThis review aimed to synthesize the literature describing the use of patient record review (PRR) to measure and improve patient safety in primary care. The PRR methodologies utilized and the resulting outcomes were examined.
methodsSearches were conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO in February 2017. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were also screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies that utilized PRR to identify patient safety incidents (PSIs) occurring in general practice were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from articles and applied the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.
resultsA total of 3265 studies were screened, with 15 included. Trigger tools were the most frequent method used for the PRRs (n = 6). The mean number of safety incidents per 100 records was 12.6. Within studies, a mean of 30.6% of incidents were associated with severe harm (range 8.6-50%), and a mean of 55.6% of incidents was considered preventable (range 32.7-93.5%). The most commonly identified types of PSIs related to medication and prescribing, diagnosis, communication and treatment. Three studies reported on improvement actions taken after the PRRs.
conclusionThis review suggests that PRR may be a promising means of proactively identifying patient safety incidents and informing improvements.
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.