Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Summer;36(3):195-205.
doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000098.

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Significant Event Analysis: Exploring Personal Impact and Applying Systems Thinking in Primary Care

Affiliations

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Significant Event Analysis: Exploring Personal Impact and Applying Systems Thinking in Primary Care

Paul Bowie et al. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016 Summer.

Abstract

Introduction: Significant event analysis (SEA) is well established in many primary care settings but can be poorly implemented. Reasons include the emotional impact on clinicians and limited knowledge of systems thinking in establishing why events happen and formulating improvements. To enhance SEA effectiveness, we developed and tested "guiding tools" based on human factors principles.

Methods: Mixed-methods development of guiding tools (Personal Booklet-to help with emotional demands and apply a human factors analysis at the individual level; Desk Pad-to guide a team-based systems analysis; and a written Report Format) by a multiprofessional "expert" group and testing with Scottish primary care practitioners who submitted completed enhanced SEA reports. Evaluation data were collected through questionnaire, telephone interviews, and thematic analysis of SEA reports.

Results: Overall, 149/240 care practitioners tested the guiding tools and submitted completed SEA reports (62.1%). Reported understanding of how to undertake SEA improved postintervention (P < .001), while most agreed that the Personal Booklet was practical (88/123, 71.5%) and relevant to dealing with related emotions (93/123, 75.6%). The Desk Pad tool helped focus the SEA on systems issues (85/123, 69.1%), while most found the Report Format clear (94/123, 76.4%) and would recommend it (88/123, 71.5%). Most SEA reports adopted a systems approach to analyses (125/149, 83.9%), care improvement (74/149, 49.7), or planned actions (42/149, 28.2%).

Discussion: Applying human factors principles to SEA potentially enables care teams to gain a systems-based understanding of why things go wrong, which may help with related emotional demands and with more effective learning and improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. P. Bowie, E. McNaughton, and D. Bruce conceived the idea, acquired funding, and led the study which was project managed by D. Holly. The data collection and analysis process was undertaken by D. Holly, E. Forrest, S. Stirling, J. Ferguson, and J. Wakeling, with additional data interpretation by P. Bowie, J. McKay, E. McNaughton, and D. Bruce. P. Bowie drafted the initial manuscript, and all authors contributed to the study design, conceptual model, guiding tool developments, and critical review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript. The study was funded by the Health Foundation (www.health.org.uk) as part of a 2012/13 SHINE Programme Award.

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Conceptual model of a systems approach to enhanced SEA in primary care settings

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. The Health Foundation: Evidence Scan: Levels of Harm in Primary Care. 2011. London, United Kingdom: Available at: http://www.health.org.uk/publications/levels-of-harm-in-primary-care/. Accessed September 14, 2015.
    1. Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office; 2013.
    1. O'Beirne M, Sterlin P, Palacios-Derflingher L, et al. Emotional impact of patient safety incidents on family physicians and their office staff. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25:177–183. - PubMed
    1. Bowie P, Pope L, Lough M. A review of the current evidence base for significant event analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:520–536. - PubMed
    1. Pringle M, Bradley C, Carmichael C, et al. Significant Event Auditing: A Study of the Feasibility and Potential of Case-based Auditing in Primary Medical Care. Occasional Paper No. 70. London, United Kingdom: Royal College of General Practitioners; 1995. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types