Observational studyBMC primary care2024
Post-pandemic patient safety: have the characteristics of incidents with harm changed? Comparative observational study in primary care via review of medical records with a trigger tool.
Observational study in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: Systematic Review of Clinical Implementation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The Vigilance Gradient: Nine Years of Adverse Event Trends in Pediatric Critical Care.Critical care explorations · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic generated or accelerated healthcare changes, some of which persist thereafter (e.g., healthcare reorganisation, remote consultation). Such changes entail novel risks for patient safety.
methodsAim To compare the characteristics of patient safety incidents with harm (PSIH) in primary care before the pandemic and at present. Design and setting Cross-sectional, comparative, observational study conducted within the entire Primary Care Service of the Madrid region with observations at two time points (2018 and 2021/2022). Participants Patients > 18 years of age with at least one consultation in the previous year. The necessary sample size was established at N1 = 2,000 for the first time point and N2 = 2,700 for the second. Sampling was performed by simple randomisation for the first group and by clusters followed by simple randomisation for the second. Main measurements Age, gender, presence of PSIH in the medical record, and characteristics of the PSIH, specifically avoidability, severity, place of occurrence, nature, and contributory factors. Triggers validated in primary care were employed to screen the patients' medical records and those containing any trigger were reviewed by three nurse-physician teams who underwent previous training. Analysis Comparative analysis using Fisher's exact test.
resultsA total of 63 PSIHs and 25 PSIHs were found for the first and second samples, respectively. The comparison of the characteristics of PSIH before the pandemic and currently was: avoidable 62% vs. 52% (p = 0.47), mild 51% vs. 48% (p = 0.57), in the primary care setting 73% vs. 64% (p = 0.47), respectively. Although no statistically significant differences were observed globally in the nature of the incidents (p = 0.13), statistically significant differences were found for diagnostic errors, with pre-pandemic rates of 6% vs. 20% at present (p < 0.05). Finally, no significant differences were found in the contributory factors.
conclusionsNo differences were found in the avoidability, severity, place of occurrence, or contributory factors of PSIHs before the pandemic and currently. In terms of the nature of these incidents, the outcomes revealed an increase in diagnostic errors (excluding diagnostic tests), which could be attributed to a greater frequency of remote consultations and a decrease in the longitudinality of care resulting from the shortage of professionals.
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.