Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31061052›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Investigating the feasibility of a patient feedback tool to improve safety in Australian primary care: a study protocol.

Andrea L Hernan, Kate Kloot, Sally J Giles, Hannah Beks, Kevin McNamara, Marley J Binder, Vincent Versace

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A qualitative exploration of mental health service user and carer perspectives on safety issues in UK mental health services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    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

7 authors.

Andrea L HernanDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4542-1186
Kate KlootCentre for Rural Emergency Medicine, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia.
Sally J GilesNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Hannah BeksDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Kevin McNamaraDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Marley J BinderDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Vincent VersaceDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients are a valuable source of information about ways to prevent harm in healthcare, and can provide feedback about the factors that contribute to safety incidents. The Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) is a novel and validated tool that captures patient feedback on safety and can be used by primary care practice teams to identify and prevent safety incidents. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of PC PMOS as a tool for data-driven safety improvement and monitoring in Australian primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Feasibility will be assessed using a mixed-methods approach to understand the enablers, barriers, acceptability, practicability, intervention fidelity and scalability of C PMOS as a tool for safety improvement across six primary care practices in the south-west region of Victoria. Patients over the age of 18 years attending their primary care practice will be invited to complete the PC PMOS when presenting for an appointment. Staff members at each practice will form a safety improvement team. Staff will then use the patient feedback to develop and implement specific safety interventions over a 6-month period. Data collection methods during the intervention period includes audio recordings of staff meetings, overt observations at training and education workshops, reflexive researcher insights, document collection and review. Data collection postintervention includes patient completion of the PC PMOS and semistructured interviews with staff. Triangulation and thematic analysis techniques will be employed to analyse the qualitative and content data. Analysis methods will use current evidence and models of healthcare culture, safety improvement and patient involvement in safety to inform the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group, Faculty of Health (HEAG-H 175_2017). Study results will be disseminated through local and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementResearch DesignAustraliaFeasibility StudiesFeedbackHumansPatient SafetyPrimary Health Careprimary carequalitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID31061052
PMCPMC6501999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.