Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35908186›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022

A mixed-methods characterisation of patient safety incidents by primary eye care practitioners.

Elinor MacFarlane, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Rachel North, Barbara Ryan, Jennifer Acton

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elinor MacFarlaneSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6268-6461
Andrew Carson-StevensPRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7580-7699
Rachel NorthSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6657-5099
Barbara RyanSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3722-8757
Jennifer ActonSchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0347-7651
Cardiff University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient safety in eye health care is an underdeveloped field of research. A patient safety incident occurs when an unintended incident happens that could have (or did) lead to harm. To enable learning from patient safety incidents in optometry, a characterisation of commonly experienced safety incidents is needed to identify options to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to characterise eye health-related patient safety incidents from the perspective of eye care practitioners.

methodsAt a national conference in Wales, 56 eye care practitioners participated in a stakeholder workshop on eye care-related patient safety incidents. Participants were asked to suggest patient safety incidents that have occurred, or based on their experience, could occur in optometric practice. Using the nominal group technique, participants voted on the incident they perceived could cause the most harm and the incident observed most frequently in practice. Framework analysis supported identification of themes about the nature and outcomes of incidents in eye care.

resultsDiagnostic incidents were perceived to be the most severe (highest number of 'severity votes', n = 38), whilst administration-related incidents were most frequent (highest number of 'frequency votes' n = 39). Four themes were identified which are as follows: inappropriate clinical decision-making; delayed or missed referral of patients to general medical practitioners or ophthalmologists; compromised communication with other practitioners or patients and delays in receiving eye care. The results suggest that incidents relating to inappropriate clinical decision-making could result in the most severe harm to patients but may not occur frequently.

conclusionsDiagnostic- and administrative-related incidents pose clear challenges for improvement in quality and safety of care. The breadth of themes reflecting the nature and outcomes from unsafe eye care highlights the complexity underpinning incidents and the burden to patients. This work has informed the content of an all-Wales incident report form for primary eye care practitioners.

Indexed as

General PractitionersPatient SafetyClinical Decision-MakingCommunicationHumansMedical Errorseyeeyecareincidentoptometrypatient safetyprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID35908186
PMCPMC9796726
OpenAlexW4288925113

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.