BackgroundMultisource feedback (MSF) is currently being introduced in the UK as part of a cycle of performance review for doctors. However, although it is suggested that the provision of feedback can lead to a positive change in performance and learning for medical professionals, the evidence supporting these assumptions is unclear. The aim of this review, therefore, was to identify the key factors that influence the effectiveness of multisource feedback in improving the professional practice of medical doctors.MethodRelevant electronic bibliographic databases were searched for studies that aimed to assess the impact of MSF on professional practice. Two reviewers independently selected and quality assessed the studies and abstracted data regarding study design, setting, MSF instrument, behaviour changes identified and influencing factors using a standard data extraction form.ResultsA total of 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and quality assessment criteria. While seven studies reported only a general change in professional practice, a further seven studies identified specific changes in behaviour. The main professional behaviours that were found to be influenced by the feedback were communication, both with colleagues and patients and an improvement in clinical competence/skills. The main factors found to influence the acceptance and use of MSF were the format of the feedback, specifically in terms of whether it was facilitated, or if narrative comments were included in the review, and if the feedback was from sources that the physician believed to be knowledgeable and credible.ConclusionsWhile there is limited evidence suggesting that MSF can influence professional performance, the quality of this evidence is variable. Further research is necessary to establish how this type of feedback actually influences behaviours and what factors have greatest influence.

Background: A multi-method strategy has been proposed to understand and improve the safety of primary care. The trigger tool is a relatively new method that has shown promise in American and secondary healthcare settings. It involves the focused review of a random sample of patient records using a series of ''triggers'' that alert reviewers to potential errors and previously undetected adverse events. Aim: To develop and test a global trigger tool to detect errors and adverse events in primary-care records. Method: Trigger tool development was informed by previous research and content validated by expert opinion. The tool was applied by trained reviewers who worked in pairs to conduct focused audits of 100 randomly selected electronic patient records in each of five urban general practices in central Scotland. Results: Review of 500 records revealed 2251 consultations and 730 triggers. An adverse event was found in 47 records (9.4%), indicating that harm occurred at a rate of one event per 48 consultations. Of these, 27 were judged to be preventable (42%). A further 17 records (3.4%) contained evidence of a potential adverse event. Harm severity was low to moderate for most patients (82.9%). Error and harm rates were higher in those aged >60 years, and most were medication-related (59%). Conclusions: The trigger tool was successful in identifying undetected patient harm in primary-care records and may be the most reliable method for achieving this. However, the feasibility of its routine application is open to question. The tool may have greater utility as a research rather than an audit technique. Further testing in larger, representative study samples is required.Error and harm in healthcare are common, costly and often preventable.

BackgroundPharmacists’ completion of medication reconciliation in the community after hospital discharge is intended to reduce harm due to prescribed or omitted medication and increase healthcare efficiency, but the effectiveness of this approach is not clear. We systematically review the literature to evaluate intervention effectiveness in terms of discrepancy identification and resolution, clinical relevance of resolved discrepancies and healthcare utilisation, including readmission rates, emergency department attendance and primary care workload.MethodsThis is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of extracted data. Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, NHS Evidence and the Cochrane databases were searched using a combination of medical subject heading terms and free-text search terms. Controlled studies evaluating pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in the community after hospital discharge were included. Study quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Evidence was assessed through meta-analysis of readmission rates. Discrepancy identification rates, emergency department attendance and primary care workload were assessed narratively.ResultsFourteen studies were included, comprising five randomised controlled trials, six cohort studies and three pre–post intervention studies. Twelve studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. Increased identification and resolution of discrepancies was demonstrated in the four studies where this was evaluated. Reduction in clinically relevant discrepancies was reported in two studies. Meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant reduction in readmission rate. There was no consistent evidence of reduction in emergency department attendance or primary care workload.ConclusionsPharmacists can identify and resolve discrepancies when completing medication reconciliation after hospital discharge, but patient outcome or care workload improvements were not consistently seen. Future research should examine the clinical relevance of discrepancies and potential benefits on reducing healthcare team workload.

(Words 150)This study aimed to investigate why there is variability in taking blood.A multi method Pilot study was completed in four National Health Service This pilot study proposes a realistic view of why blood sampling activities vary and proposes the need to consider the system's resilience in future safety management strategies.

This was the first known attempt to measure perceptions of safety climate in UK primary care with a validated instrument specifically developed for that purpose. Reported perceptions of the prevailing safety climate were generally positive. This may reflect ongoing efforts to build a strong safety culture in primary care or alternatively point to an overestimation of the effectiveness of local safety systems. The significant variation in perception between certain staff groups has potential safety implications and may have to be aligned for a positive and strong safety culture to be built. While safety climate measurement has various benefits at the individual, practice team and regional level, further research of its association with specific safety outcomes is required.

No abstract

BackgroundEnsuring effective identification and management of sepsis is a healthcare priority in many countries. Recommendations for sepsis management in primary care have been produced, but in complex healthcare systems, an in-depth understanding of current system interactions and functioning is often essential before improvement interventions can be successfully designed and implemented. A structured participatory design approach to model a primary care system was employed to hypothesise gaps between work as intended and work delivered to inform improvement and implementation priorities for sepsis management.MethodsIn a Scottish regional health authority, multiple stakeholders were interviewed and the records of patients admitted from primary care to hospital with possible sepsis analysed. This identified the key work functions required to manage these patients successfully, the influence of system conditions (such as resource availability) and the resulting variability of function output. This information was used to model the system using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM). The multiple stakeholder interviews also explored perspectives on system improvement needs which were subsequently themed. The FRAM model directed an expert group to reconcile improvement suggestions with current work systems and design an intervention to improve clinical management of sepsis.ResultsFourteen key system functions were identified, and a FRAM model was created. Variability was found in the output of all functions. The overall system purpose and improvement priorities were agreed. Improvement interventions were reconciled with the FRAM model of current work to understand how best to implement change, and a multi-component improvement intervention was designed.ConclusionsTraditional improvement approaches often focus on individual performance or a specific care process, rather than seeking to understand and improve overall performance in a complex system. The construction of the FRAM model facilitated an understanding of the complexity of interactions within the current system, how system conditions influence everyday sepsis management and how proposed interventions would work within the context of the current system. This directed the design of a multi-component improvement intervention that organisations could locally adapt and implement with the aim of improving overall system functioning and performance to improve sepsis management.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1164-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A chasm exists between the high expectations for SEA and the lack of evidence of its impact. SEA may have some merit as a team-based educational tool. However, it may not be a reliable technique for investigating serious or complex safety issues in general practice. Policy makers need to be more explicit about the actual purpose of SEA.