ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Delphi analysis of how the practice team should organise event analysis in primary care.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSignificant event analysis is a common quality improvement activity in UK general practice (GP). How well do general practice (GP) teams conduct their analyses? There is little guidance and no measuring tool. This is a Delphi analysis among Scottish multidisciplinary primary care team members to establish a set of quality indicators by which practices can self-assess their practice processes in conducting their event analyses.
methodsA Delphi method specifically for identifying quality indicators in healthcare was used. Purposeful selection was of primary care team members with known experience of significant event analysis; informed participants. After setting a consensus score, 29 items for the first round Delphi survey, drawn from the literature, were sent out with the ability to comment on each. The second Delphi round contained those items which had passed the consensus score, the aggregated comments on those items and any suggestions for new items.
resultsOf 24 informed participants approached, 10 (37.5%) agreed to undertake the full cycle of the Delphi process. 17 items from the first Delphi survey passed the consensus score with one additional item suggested. With the amalgamation of items, 16 statements were presented in the second Delphi, of which 15 passed the consensus score.
conclusionsLearnings from our Delphi are that practitioners prefer the term 'learning event analysis' to 'significant event analysis', and that practice nurses may need specific encouragement to become more involved in event analysis. There is reluctance to involve patients or patient representatives in the event analysis itself. Engagement in well-conducted event analysis strengthens the whole practice team.
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.