ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2020
Validation and initial results of surveys exploring perspectives on risks and solutions for diagnostic and medication errors in primary care in Sweden.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between recorded medication reviews in primary care and adequate drug treatment management - a cross-sectional study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- More women than men achieve PhDs in Swedish family medicine but scientific impact was not gender skewed - a secular trend analysis 1980-2020.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo (1) validate and (2) display initial results of surveys to health care professionals and patients on the importance and mitigation of specified risks for diagnostic and medication errors.
designFor validation, psychometric properties were analysed by assessment of construct validity and internal consistency by factor analysis. Non-parametric analyses were used concerning areas of risk, and top ranking of solutions were reported descriptively.
settingPrimary health care in Sweden.
participantsHealth care professionals (HCPs); including physicians, nurses and practice managers, as well as patients who had experienced diagnostic or medication errors.
main outcome measuresPsychometric properties of the surveys. Median ratings for risks and top rankings of solutions for professionals and patients.
resultsThere were 939 respondents to the HCP survey. Construct validity resulted in a model with four dimensions: Patient-provider level; Support systems for every day clinical work; Shared information and cooperation between different caregivers; Risks in the environment. Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach's α values above 0.7. Confirmatory factor analysis generally showed an acceptable fit. Initial results from the professionals showed the importance of continuity of care, a nationwide on-line medical platform and cooperation in transfer of care. The patient survey could not be validated because of low response rate.
conclusionThe HCP survey showed some contradicting results regarding model fit and may be tentatively acceptable but validity needs further study. HCP survey answers indicated that relational continuity of care and a nationwide on-line medical platform are highly valued. Current awareness Health care professionals and patients are rather untapped sources of knowledge regarding patient safety in primary health care Main statements Validation is performed on a new survey capturing rating of risks and solutions. The validation of the health care professional survey is tentatively acceptable. Survey answers indicate that health care professionals' and patients' perspectives are complementary.
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.