Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31585529›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Identifying 'avoidable harm' in family practice: a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study.

Andrew Carson-Stevens, Stephen Campbell, Brian G Bell, Alison Cooper, Sarah Armstrong, Darren Ashcroft, Matthew Boyd, Huw Prosser Evans, Rajnikant Mehta, Christina Sheehan and 2 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A mixed-methods characterisation of patient safety incidents by primary eye care practitioners.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors.

Andrew Carson-StevensDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th Floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Cardiff, UK. carson-stevensap@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7580-7699
Stephen CampbellDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Brian G BellSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Alison CooperDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th Floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Cardiff, UK.
Sarah ArmstrongSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Darren AshcroftDrug Usage and Pharmacy Practice Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matthew BoydSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Huw Prosser EvansDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, 8th Floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Cardiff, UK.
Rajnikant MehtaSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Christina SheehanSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Anthony AverySchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom's national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed.

methodsWe developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of 'significant harm'. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define "avoidable harm" within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings.

resultsPanelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1 s or 2 s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7 s 8 s or 9 s) were represented by these a priori categories. DISCUSSION: The findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety.

conclusionWe have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.

Indexed as

Family PracticeHumansMedical ErrorsPatient SafetyFamily practicePatient safety, adverse event, harmPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID31585529
PMCPMC6777037

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.