ArticleFamily practice2022
Rural general practice staff experiences of patient safety incidents and low quality of care in Norway: an interview study.
Article in Family practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motivations and challenges experienced among locums working in Norwegian rural general practice: a reflexive thematic analysis.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Addressing systemic workforce challenges in general practice-a qualitative study of general practitioners in Ireland.Family practice · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence and health empowerment in rural communities and landslide- or avalanche-isolated contexts: real case at a fictitious location.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Training through Simulation Using the Crisis Resource Management Tool for Primary Care Professionals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Professional burnout and patient safety culture in Primary Health Care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesGeneral practitioners (GPs), nurses and medical secretaries (practice staff) are responsible for the continuous provision of safe care in rural general practice. Little is known about their role in situations where patients were or could have been harmed in a rural setting. Therefore, we sought to investigate rural general practice staff experiences of patient safety incidents and low quality of care.
methodsDescriptive qualitative interviews using the critical incident technique. Systematic text condensation analysis involving GPs and practice staff in eight rural municipalities in Norway.
resultsSixteen participants (eight GPs, one nurse and seven medical secretaries) with mean work experience of 11.8 years were interviewed for a total of 11.5 hours. We identified three main factors that make rural GP clinics vulnerable to patient safety incidents and low quality of care: use of locums, work overload and rough weather and distance to hospital. There was a wide range of patient safety incidents. The healthcare personnel explained how they used local knowledge about people and context and greater awareness of risk of error in order to prevent these incidents from happening.
conclusionRural GP clinics that suffer from frequent use of GP locums and work overload are vulnerable to patient safety incidents. Practice staff use various forms of continuity of care to prevent safety incidents from happening; this highlights the strengths but also some major safety concerns in these GP clinics. Staff at these clinics proved to be a resource for patient safety research. PODCAST: An accompanying podcast on patient safety is available as Supplementary Data, in which Martin Bruusgaardf Harbitz and Per Stensland provide insights into the context of this study.
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.