A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care
- PMID: 19723325
- PMCID: PMC2744665
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-10-61
A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care
Abstract
Background: Significant event analysis (SEA) is promoted as a team-based approach to enhancing patient safety through reflective learning. Evidence of SEA participation is required for appraisal and contractual purposes in UK general practice. A voluntary educational model in the west of Scotland enables general practitioners (GPs) and doctors-in-training to submit SEA reports for feedback from trained peers. We reviewed reports to identify the range of safety issues analysed, learning needs raised and actions taken by GP teams.
Method: Content analysis of SEA reports submitted in an 18 month period between 2005 and 2007.
Results: 191 SEA reports were reviewed. 48 described patient harm (25.1%). A further 109 reports (57.1%) outlined circumstances that had the potential to cause patient harm. Individual 'error' was cited as the most common reason for event occurrence (32.5%). Learning opportunities were identified in 182 reports (95.3%) but were often non-specific professional issues not shared with the wider practice team. 154 SEA reports (80.1%) described actions taken to improve practice systems or professional behaviour. However, non-medical staff were less likely to be involved in the changes resulting from event analyses describing patient harm (p < 0.05) CONCLUSION: The study provides some evidence of the potential of SEA to improve healthcare quality and safety. If applied rigorously, GP teams and doctors in training can use the technique to investigate and learn from a wide variety of quality issues including those resulting in patient harm. This leads to reported change but it is unclear if such improvement is sustained.
Similar articles
-
Variations in the ability of general medical practitioners to apply two methods of clinical audit: A five-year study of assessment by peer review.J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Dec;12(6):622-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00630.x. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006. PMID: 17100861
-
Acceptability and educational impact of a peer feedback model for significant event analysis.Med Educ. 2008 Dec;42(12):1210-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03235.x. Med Educ. 2008. PMID: 19120952
-
GP recruitment and retention: a qualitative analysis of doctors' comments about training for and working in general practice.Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002 Feb;(83):iii-vi, 1-33. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002. PMID: 12049026 Free PMC article.
-
Are vocationally trained general practitioners better GPs? A review of research designs and outcomes.Med Educ. 1998 May;32(3):244-54. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00192.x. Med Educ. 1998. PMID: 9743777 Review.
-
Perceptual capacity and the good GP: invisible, yet indispensable for quality of care.Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Dec;55(521):974-7. Br J Gen Pract. 2005. PMID: 16378582 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
Cited by
-
Participatory design of a preliminary safety checklist for general practice.Br J Gen Pract. 2015 May;65(634):e330-43. doi: 10.3399/bjgp15X684865. Br J Gen Pract. 2015. PMID: 25918338 Free PMC article.
-
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Significant Event Analysis: Exploring Personal Impact and Applying Systems Thinking in Primary Care.J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016 Summer;36(3):195-205. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000098. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016. PMID: 27583996 Free PMC article.
-
Understanding the epidemiology of avoidable significant harm in primary care: protocol for a retrospective cross-sectional study.BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 17;7(2):e013786. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013786. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28213602 Free PMC article.
-
Laboratory test ordering and results management systems: a qualitative study of safety risks identified by administrators in general practice.BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 6;4(2):e004245. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004245. BMJ Open. 2014. PMID: 24503302 Free PMC article.
-
Risk Assessment of Using Entonox for the Relief of Labor Pain: A Healthcare Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Approach.Electron Physician. 2016 Mar 25;8(3):2150-9. doi: 10.19082/2150. eCollection 2016 Mar. Electron Physician. 2016. PMID: 27123224 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Department of Health . The Stationery Office. London: Department of Health; 2001. An organisation with a memory: learning from adverse events in the NHS.
-
- Department of Health . Doing Less Harm: Improving the safety and quality of care through reporting, analysing and learning from adverse incidents involving NHS patients - Key requirements for health care provider. Department of Health, London; 2001.
-
- Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Herbert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. New Eng J Med. 1991;324:370–6. - PubMed
-
- Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds . To err is human. Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. pp. 1–16. - PubMed
-
- Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibber RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust. 1995;163:458–71. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources