Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38050161›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2024

Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.

Rebecca Payne, Aileen Clarke, Nadia Swann, Jackie van Dael, Natassia Brenman, Rebecca Rosen, Adam Mackridge, Lucy Moore, Asli Kalin, Emma Ladds and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Patient and family engagement interventions in primary care patient safety: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Safety-netting communication during telephone consultations: an observational study using recorded consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

22 authors.

Rebecca PayneNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Aileen ClarkeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nadia SwannNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jackie van DaelNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Natassia BrenmanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rebecca RosenNuffield Trust, London, UK.
Adam MackridgeBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK.
Lucy MooreNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Asli KalinNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Emma LaddsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nina HemmingsNuffield Trust, London, UK.
Sarah Rybczynska-BuntPeninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Stuart FaulknerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Isabel HansonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sophie SpittersWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Sietse WieringaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7758-8493
Francesca H DakinNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Joseph WhertonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard ByngPeninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Laiba HusainNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK trish.greenhalgh@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2369-8088

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTriage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023.

methodsMultimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts.

resultsSafety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions.

conclusionWhile safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchTriageFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesUnited KingdomDiagnostic errorsPrehospital carePrimary careQualitative researchSafety culture

Identifiers

PMID38050161
PMCPMC11347200

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.