ArticleBMJ open quality2023
Perceptions of medical error among general practitioners in rural China: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical error (ME) is a serious public health problem and a leading cause of death. The reported adverse incidents in China were much less than western countries, and the research on patient safety in rural China's primary care institutions was scarce. This study aims to identify the factors contributing to the under-reporting of ME among general practitioners in township health centres (THCs).
methodsA qualitative semi-structured interview study was conducted with 31 general practitioners working in 30 THCs across 6 provinces. Thematic analysis was conducted using a grounded theory approach.
resultsThe understanding of ME was not unified, from only mild consequence to only almost equivalent to medical malpractice. Common coping strategies for THCs after ME occurs included concealing and punishment. None of the participants reported adverse events through the National Clinical Improvement System website since they worked in THCs. Discussions about ME always focused on physicians rather than the system.
conclusionsThe low reported incidence of ME could be explained by unclear concept, unawareness and blame culture. It is imperative to provide supportive environment, patient safety training and good examples of error-based improvements to rural primary care institutions so that ME could be fully discussed, and systemic factors of ME could be recognised and improved there in the future.
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.