Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32565479›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Patient feedback for safety improvement in primary care: results from a feasibility study.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Coproducing data-driven organizational safety with patients: development and cognitive testing of a multisetting patient-reported safety concern tool.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea L HernanDeakin Rural Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia andrea.hernan@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4542-1186
Sally J GilesNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Hannah BeksDeakin Rural Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2851-6450
Kevin McNamaraDeakin Rural Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Kate KlootCentre for Rural Emergency Medicine, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia.
Marley J BinderDeakin Rural Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Vincent VersaceDeakin Rural Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Deakin University · AUUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPatient involvement in safety improvement is a developing area of research. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a patient feedback on safety intervention in primary care. Specifically, the intervention acceptability, fidelity, implementation enablers and barriers, scalability, and process of systematically collecting safety data were examined. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsMixed-methods feasibility trial with six purposively selected Australian primary care practices.

interventionThe intervention comprised an iterative process with a cycle of measurement, learning, feedback, action planning and implementation period of 6 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Qualitative and quantitative data relating to feasibility measures (acceptability, fidelity, enablers, barriers, scalability and process of collecting safety data) were collected and analysed.

resultsA total of n=1750 patients provided feedback on safety. There was a statistically significant increase in mean patient safety scores indicating improved safety (4.30-4.37, p=0.002). Staff deemed the intervention acceptable, with minor recommendations for improvement. Intervention fidelity was high and implementation enablers were attributed to the intervention structure and framework, use of intuitive problem-solving approaches, and multidisciplinary team involvement. Practice-based safety interventions resulted in sustainable and measurable changes to systems for safety, such as increased access to care and improved patient information accuracy.

conclusionsThe findings indicate that this innovative patient feedback on safety intervention is feasible for scale-up to a larger effectiveness trial and further spread into policy and practice. This intervention complements existing safety improvement strategies and activities, and integrates into current patient feedback service requirements for Australian primary care. Further research is needed to examine the intervention effects on safety incident reduction.

Indexed as

FeedbackPatient SafetyPrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, Newbornhealth services administration & managementprimary carequalitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID32565479
PMCPMC7307531
OpenAlexW3036392119

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.