Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38971743›Full record

Trial reportBMC primary care2024

A multifaceted risk management program to improve the reporting rate of patient safety incidents in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Marc Chaneliere, Karine Buchet-Poyau, Maud Keriel-Gascou, Muriel Rabilloud, Cyrille Colin, Carole Langlois-Jacques, Sandrine Touzet

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02403388 (Implementation and Assessment of a Multifaceted Risk Management Program in French Multiprofessional Offices in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02403388 completednot on this map

Implementation and Assessment of a Multifaceted Risk Management Program in French Multiprofessional Offices in Primary Care : the PRisM Study

TypeobservationalSponsorHospices Civils de LyonRan2016 to 2018Enrolled50ConditionsRisk Management, Primary Health Care, Patient SafetyArmsPRisM
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Marc ChaneliereFamily Medicine Department, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 8 Avenue Rockefeller, Lyon, 69008, France. marc.chaneliere@univ-lyon1.fr.
Karine Buchet-PoyauService Recherche Et Épidémiologie Clinique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pole de Santé Publique, 162 Avenue Lacassagne, Lyon, 69003, France.
Maud Keriel-GascouFamily Medicine Department, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 8 Avenue Rockefeller, Lyon, 69008, France.
Muriel RabilloudService de Biostatistique Et Bioinformatique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pôle Santé Publique, Lyon, 69003, France.
Cyrille ColinService Recherche Et Épidémiologie Clinique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pole de Santé Publique, 162 Avenue Lacassagne, Lyon, 69003, France.
Carole Langlois-JacquesService de Biostatistique Et Bioinformatique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pôle Santé Publique, Lyon, 69003, France.
Sandrine TouzetService Recherche Et Épidémiologie Clinique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pole de Santé Publique, 162 Avenue Lacassagne, Lyon, 69003, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile patient safety incident reporting is of key importance for patient safety in primary care, the reporting rate by healthcare professionals remains low. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a risk management program in increasing the reporting rate within multiprofessional primary care facilities.

methodsA nation-wide cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed in France, with each cluster defined as a primary care facility. The intervention included professional e-learning training, identification of a risk management advisor, and multidisciplinary meetings to address incident analysis. In the first observational period, a patient safety incident reporting system for professionals was implemented in all facilities. Then, facilities were randomised, and the program was implemented. Incidents were reported over the 15-month study period. Quasi-Poisson models were used to compare reporting rates.

resultsThirty-five facilities (intervention, n = 17; control, n = 18) were included, with 169 and 232 healthcare professionals, respectively, involved. Overall, 7 out of 17 facilities carried out the entire program (41.2%), while 6 did not hold meetings (35.3%); 48.5% of professionals logged on to the e-learning website. The relative rate of incidents reported was 2.7 (95% CI = [0.84-11.0]; p = 0.12). However, a statistically significant decrease in the incident rate between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods was observed for the control arm (HR = 0.2; 95% CI = [0.05-0.54]; p = 0.02), but not for the intervention arm (HR = 0.54; 95% CI = [0.2-1.54]; p = 0.23).

conclusionThis program didn't lead to a significant improvement in the patient safety incident reporting rate by professionals but seemed to sustain reporting over time. Considering that the program was fully implemented in only 41% of facilities, this highlights the difficulty of implementing such multidisciplinary programs in primary care despite its adaptation to the setting. A better understanding of how risk management is currently organized in these multiprofessional facilities is of key importance to improve patient safety in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: The study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02403388) on 30 March 2015.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyPrimary Health CareRisk ManagementFranceHealth PersonnelHumansMedical ErrorsCluster trialIncident reportingPatient safetyPrimary careRisk management

Identifiers

PMID38971743
PMCPMC11227140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.