ObjectiveThis qualitative study aimed to explore the experience of transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care reported by posttransition emerging adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), with a focus on preparation for the actual transfer in care.MethodsTwenty-six T1D emerging adults (mean age 26.2±2.5 years) receiving adult diabetes care at a single center participated in five focus groups stratified by two levels of current glycemic control. A multidisciplinary team coded transcripts and conducted thematic analysis.ResultsFour key themes on the process of transfer to adult care emerged from a thematic analysis: 1) nonpurposeful transition (patients reported a lack of transition preparation by pediatric providers for the transfer to adult diabetes care); 2) vulnerability in the college years (patients conveyed periods of loss to follow-up during college and described health risks and diabetes management challenges specific to the college years that were inadequately addressed by pediatric or adult providers); 3) unexpected differences between pediatric and adult health care systems (patients were surprised by the different feel of adult diabetes care, especially with regards to an increased focus on diabetes complications); and 4) patients’ wish list for improving the transition process (patients recommended enhanced pediatric transition counseling, implementation of adult clinic orientation programs, and peer support for transitioning patients).ConclusionOur findings identify modifiable deficiencies in the T1D transition process and underscore the importance of a planned transition with enhanced preparation by pediatric clinics as well as developmentally tailored patient orientation in the adult clinic setting.

et al. Characterising the nature of primary care patient safety incident reports in the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: a mixed-methods agenda-setting study for general practice. Health Serv

BackgroundThe UK performs poorly relative to other economically developed countries on numerous indicators of care quality for children. The contribution of iatrogenic harm to these outcomes is unclear. As primary care is the first point of healthcare contact for most children, we sought to investigate the safety of care provided to children in this setting.Methods and FindingsWe undertook a mixed methods investigation of reports of primary care patient safety incidents involving sick children from England and Wales’ National Reporting and Learning System between 1 January 2005 and 1 December 2013. Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident reports meeting prespecified criteria, and then descriptively analyzed these reports to identify the most frequent and harmful incident types. This was followed by an in-depth thematic analysis of a purposive sample of reports to understand the reasons underpinning incidents. Key candidate areas for strengthening primary care provision and reducing the risks of systems failures were then identified through multidisciplinary discussions.Of 2,191 safety incidents identified from 2,178 reports, 30% (n = 658) were harmful, including 12 deaths and 41 cases of severe harm. The children involved in these incidents had respiratory conditions (n = 387; 18%), injuries (n = 289; 13%), nonspecific signs and symptoms, e.g., fever (n = 281; 13%), and gastrointestinal or genitourinary conditions (n = 268; 12%), among others. Priority areas for improvement included safer systems for medication provision in community pharmacies; triage processes to enable effective and timely assessment, diagnosis, and referral of acutely sick children attending out-of-hours services; and enhanced communication for robust safety netting between professionals and parents. The main limitations of this study result from underreporting of safety incidents and variable data quality. Our findings therefore require further exploration in longitudinal studies utilizing case review methods.ConclusionsThis study highlights opportunities to reduce iatrogenic harm and avoidable child deaths. Globally, healthcare systems with primary-care-led models of delivery must now examine their existing practices to determine the prevalence and burden of these priority safety issues, and utilize improvement methods to achieve sustainable improvements in care quality.

Findings highlight the importance of enhanced provider awareness of T1D emerging adults' complex feelings about the transition in care. Improved integration of individual- and family-centered approaches to developmentally tailored diabetes care is needed to augment patient and provider relationships.

This paper reports on a qualitative study of the use of an expert system developed for the British telephone triage service NHS Direct. This system, known as CAS, is designed to standardise and control the interaction between NHS Direct nurses and callers. The paper shows, however, that in practice the nurses use CAS in a range of ways and, in so doing, privilege their own expertise and deliver an individualised service. The paper concludes by arguing that NHS Direct management's policy of using CAS as a means of standardising service delivery will achieve only limited success due not only to the professional ideology of nursing but also to the fact that rule-based expert systems capture only part of what 'experts' do.

No abstract

NHS Direct is a relatively new, nurse-based, 24-hour health advice line run as part of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). The service delivers health advice remotely via the telephone. A central aspect of the service is the attempt to provide a standard level of health advice regardless of time, space or the background of the nurse. At the heart of this attempt is an innovative health software called CLINICAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (CAS). Using a number of qualitative methods, this article highlights how the interaction between the nursing staff and this technology is key to the service. The technology is based on management's attempt to standardize and control the caller-nurse relationship. Thus the software can be seen as part of an abstract rationality, whereas how it is deployed by nurses is based on a practical rationality that places practice and experience first and sees the technology and protocols as tools.

IntroductionIncident reports contain descriptions of errors and harms that occurred during clinical care delivery. Few observational studies have characterised incidents from general practice, and none of these have been from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System. This study aims to describe incidents reported from a general practice care setting.Methods and analysisA general practice patient safety incident classification will be developed to characterise patient safety incidents. A weighted-random sample of 12 500 incidents describing no harm, low harm and moderate harm of patients, and all incidents describing severe harm and death of patients will be classified. Insights from exploratory descriptive statistics and thematic analysis will be combined to identify priority areas for future interventions.Ethics and disseminationThe need for ethical approval was waivered by the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board research risk review committee given the anonymised nature of data (ABHB R&D Ref number: SA/410/13). The authors will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and undertake national and international oral presentations to researchers, clinicians and policymakers.