Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32546167›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Development of the prototype concise safe systems checklist tool for general practice.

Ian Litchfield, Rachel Spencer, Brian G Bell, Anthony Avery, Katherine Perryman, Kate Marsden, Sheila Greenfield, Stephen Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Ian LitchfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. I.Litchfield@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-5392
Rachel SpencerUnit of academic primary care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Brian G BellDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Anthony AveryDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Katherine PerrymanDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, hester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, School for Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kate MarsdenDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Sheila GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Stephen CampbellDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, hester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, School for Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

NIHR School for Primary Care Research NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion.

methodsAn extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews.

resultsIn testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful.

conclusionsAs a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

Indexed as

ChecklistGeneral PracticePatient SafetyHealth Care SurveysHumansPrimary Health CareUnited KingdomChecklistGeneral practicePatient safetyQuality indicators healthcare

Identifiers

PMID32546167
PMCPMC7296969

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.