Are health professionals’ perceptions of patient safety related to figures on safety incidents?

Martijn, Lucie; Harmsen, Mirjam; Gaal, Sander; Mettes, Dirk G.; Dulmen, Simone van; Wensing, Michel

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01887.x

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The definition of safety culture was lacking in two articles but they defined patient safety and patient safety incidents respectively [ 18 ]. There was one study where patient safety culture was defined as acceptance and actions of patient safety as the first priority in the organization [ 7 ] and four articles did not define safety culture [ 17 , 24 – 26 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient safety and safety culture in primary health care: a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatient safety in primary care is an emerging field of research with a growing evidence base in western countries but little has been explored in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC) including the Sultanate of Oman. This study aimed to review the literature on the safety culture and patient safety measures used globally to inform the development of safety culture among health care workers in primary care with a particular focus on the Middle East.MethodsA systematic review of the literature. Searches were undertaken using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from the year 2000 to 2014. Terms defining safety culture were combined with terms identifying patient safety and primary care.ResultsThe database searches identified 3072 papers that were screened for inclusion in the review. After the screening and verification, data were extracted from 28 papers that described safety culture in primary care. The global distribution of the articles is as follows: the Netherlands (7), the United States (5), Germany (4), the United Kingdom (1), Australia, Canada and Brazil (two for each country), and with one each from Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The characteristics of the included studies were grouped under the following themes: safety culture in primary care, incident reporting, safety climate and adverse events. The most common theme from 2011 onwards was the assessment of safety culture in primary care (13 studies, 46%). The most commonly used safety culture assessment tool is the Hospital survey on patient safety culture (HSOPSC) which has been used in developing countries in the Middle East.ConclusionsThis systematic review reveals that the most important first step is the assessment of safety culture in primary care which will provide a basic understanding to safety-related perceptions of health care providers. The HSOPSC has been commonly used in Kuwait, Turkey, and Iran.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0793-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another Dutch study identified that health care professionals who had a perception and understanding of patient safety had more incidents recorded [ 26 ]. All the health professionals surveyed felt that communication breakdown inside and outside the practice was a threat to patient safety and was associated with more incidents [ 26 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient safety and safety culture in primary health care: a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 2 presents data on the number and types of PSIs detected per 100 records per study. Five studies did not provide the data necessary for these calculations [ 15 , 28 , 34–36 ]. The mean number of PSIs per 100 records was 12.6 (SD = 7.21; range: 2.3–26.5).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies used similar rating scales to classify the harm resulting from PSIs, with severity categories ranging from ‘mild-moderate harm,’ ‘temporary harm,’ to ‘severe harm,’ ‘permanent harm’ and ‘patient death’ depending on the specific rating scale used. Four studies did not report severity of harm, and one study rated harm as ‘likely/unlikely’—these are excluded from Figure 2 [ 15 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 33 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review

Madden

Lydon

Curran

et al. 2018

European Journal of General Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is limited research, and guidance, on how to address safety in general practice proactively.Objectives: This review aimed to synthesize the literature describing the use of patient record review (PRR) to measure and improve patient safety in primary care. The PRR methodologies utilized and the resulting outcomes were examined.Methods: Searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO in February 2017. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were also screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies that utilized PRR to identify patient safety incidents (PSIs) occurring in general practice were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from articles and applied the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.Results: A total of 3265 studies were screened, with 15 included. Trigger tools were the most frequent method used for the PRRs (n = 6). The mean number of safety incidents per 100 records was 12.6. Within studies, a mean of 30.6% of incidents were associated with severe harm (range 8.6–50%), and a mean of 55.6% of incidents was considered preventable (range 32.7–93.5%). The most commonly identified types of PSIs related to medication and prescribing, diagnosis, communication and treatment. Three studies reported on improvement actions taken after the PRRs.Conclusion: This review suggests that PRR may be a promising means of proactively identifying patient safety incidents and informing improvements.

show abstract

“…Note. These figures do not total to 56 as six of the studies [13][14][15][16][17][18] included in the review employed two different types of patient safety assessment tools.…”

Section: Study Categorisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Measurement Tools for the Proactive Assessment of Patient Safety in General Practice

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Primary care physicians have reported a difficulty in understanding how best to measure and improve patient safety in their practices. Objectives. To identify measures of patient safety suitable for use in primary care and provide guidance on proactively monitoring and measuring safety. Methods. Searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo in February 2016. Studies that utilised a measure assessing levels of, or attitudes towards, patient safety in primary care were considered for inclusion. Only studies describing tools focused on the proactive assessment of safety were reviewed. Two independent reviewers extracted data from articles and applied the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Results. 2,800 studies were screened, of which 56 were included. The majority of studies had utilised healthcare staff survey or interviews to assess patient safety (N=34), followed by patient chart audit (N=14), or use of a practice assessment checklist (N=7). Survey or interview of patients, active monitoring systems, and simulated patients were used with less frequency. Conclusions and relevance. A lack of appropriate measurement tools has been suggested to limit the ability to monitor patient safety in primary care and to improve patient care. There is no evident "best" method of measuring patient safety in primary care. However, many of the measures are readily available, quick to administer, do not require external involvement, and Manchester Patient Safety Framework Used in four studies 23-26 PC SafeQuest Used in three studies 27-29 SCOPE questionnaire Used in three studies 25,30,31 Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture Used in three studies 32-34 Frankfurt Patient Safety Climate Questionnaire Used in three studies 14,35,36 Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Used in two studies 37,38 Perceived hazard questionnaire Used in two studies 39,40 Survey tool/interview protocol used in only one study Used in 11 studies 13,14,41-49 Studies utilising patient chart audit methodologies In total, 14 studies (see Tables 1 and 3; for detailed study descriptions, see Table 2 in Online Supplementary Material 2) used existing patients' charts in order to identify previously undetected patient safety incidents.

show abstract

Are health professionals’ perceptions of patient safety related to figures on safety incidents?

Abstract: This study indicates that the assessment of professionals' perceptions may be complementary to observed safety incidents, but not linked to an objective measure of patient safety.

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Patient safety and safety culture in primary health care: a systematic review

Patient safety and safety culture in primary health care: a systematic review

Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review

A Systematic Review of Measurement Tools for the Proactive Assessment of Patient Safety in General Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About