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

Validation of a Reduced Set of High-Performance Triggers for Identifying Patient Safety Incidents with Harm in Primary Care: TriggerPrim Project

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to construct and validate a reduced set of high-performance triggers for identifying adverse events (AEs) via electronic medical records (EMRs) review in primary care (PC).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study for validating a diagnostic test. The study included all 262 PC centers of Madrid region (Spain). Patients were older than 18 years who attended their PC center over the last quarter of 2018. The randomized sample was n = 1797. Main measurements were as follows: ( a ) presence of each of 19 specific computer-identified triggers in the EMR and ( b ) occurrence of an AE. To collect data, EMR review was conducted by 3 doctor-nurse teams. Triggers with statistically significant odds ratios for identifying AEs were selected for the final set after adjusting for age and sex using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The sensitivity (SS) and specificity (SP) for the selected triggers were: ≥3 appointments in a week at the PC center (SS = 32.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 22.8%-41.8%]; SP = 92.8% [95% CI, 91.6%-94.0%]); hospital admission (SS = 19.4% [95% CI, 11.4%-27.4%]; SP = 97.2% [95% CI, 96.4%-98.0%]); hospital emergency department visit (SS = 31.2% [95% CI, 21.8%-40.6%]; SP = 90.8% [95% CI, 89.4%-92.2%]); major opioids prescription (SS = 2.2% [95% CI, 0.0%-5.2%]; SP = 99.8% [95% CI, 99.6%-100%]); and chronic benzodiazepine treatment in patients 75 years or older (SS = 14.0% [95% CI, 6.9%-21.1%]; SP = 95.5% [95% CI, 94.5%-96.5%]).The following values were obtained in the validation of this trigger set (the occurrence of at least one of these triggers in the EMR): SS = 60.2% (95% CI, 50.2%-70.1%), SP = 80.8% (95% CI, 78.8%-82.6%), positive predictive value = 14.6% (95% CI, 11.0%-18.1%), negative predictive value = 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.2%), positive likelihood ratio = 3.13 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2), and negative likelihood ratio = 0.49 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

The set containing the 5 selected triggers almost triples the efficiency of EMR review in detecting AEs. This suggests that this set is easily implementable and of great utility in risk-management practice.

Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review

Many hospitals continue to use incident reporting systems (IRSs) as their primary patient safety data source. The information IRSs collect on the frequency of harm to patients [adverse events (AEs)] is generally of poor quality, and some incident types (e.g. diagnostic errors) are under-reported. Other methods of collecting patient safety information using medical record review, such as the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), have been developed. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review to empirically quantify the gap between the percentage of AEs detected using the GTT to those that are also detected via IRSs. The review was conducted in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English, which collected AE data using the GTT and IRSs, were included. In total, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were undertaken in hospitals and were published between 2006 and 2022. The studies were conducted in six countries, mainly in the USA (nine studies). Studies reviewed 22 589 medical records using the GTT across 107 institutions finding 7166 AEs. The percentage of AEs detected using the GTT that were also detected in corresponding IRSs ranged from 0% to 37.4% with an average of 7.0% (SD 9.1; median 3.9 and IQR 5.2). Twelve of the fourteen studies found <10% of the AEs detected using the GTT were also found in corresponding IRSs. The >10-fold gap between the detection rates of the GTT and IRSs is strong evidence that the rate of AEs collected in IRSs in hospitals should not be used to measure or as a proxy for the level of safety of a hospital. IRSs should be recognized for their strengths which are to detect rare, serious, and new incident types and to enable analysis of contributing and contextual factors to develop preventive and corrective strategies. Health systems should use multiple patient safety data sources to prioritize interventions and promote a cycle of action and improvement based on data rather than merely just collecting and analysing information.

Identifying hot spots for harm and blind spots across the care pathway from patient complaints about general practice

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare complaints are underutilized for quality improvement in general practice. Systematic analysis of complaints has identified hot spots (areas across the care pathway where issues occur frequently) and blind spots (areas across the care pathway that cannot be observed by staff) in secondary care. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) has been adapted to the HCAT(GP).

AIMS

This study aimed to: (i) assess whether the HCAT(GP) can systematically analyze complaints about general practice; and (ii) identify hot spots and blind spots in general practice.

METHODS

GP complaints were sampled. Complaints were coded with the HCAT(GP), classified by HCAT(GP) category (e.g. Safety, Environment, Listening), stage of care (e.g. accessing care, referral/follow-up), severity (e.g. low, medium, high), and harm (e.g. none, major). Descriptive statistics were run to identify discrete issues. A chi-square test of independence identified hot spots, and logistic regression was used for blind spots.

RESULTS

A total of 230 complaints, encompassing 432 issues (i.e. unique problems within complaints), were categorized. Relationship issues (e.g. problems with listening, communication, and patient rights) emerged most frequently (n = 174, 40%). Hot spots were identified in the consultation and the referral/follow-up stages (χ 2(5, n = 432) = 17.931, P < 0.05). A blind spot for multiple issues was identified, with the likelihood of harm increasing with number of issues (odds ratio = 2.02, confidence interval = 1.27-3.23, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Complaints are valuable data for improving general practice. This study demonstrated that the HCAT(GP) can support the systematic analysis of general practice complaints, and identify hot spots and blind spots in care.

A Systematic Review of Methods for Medical Record Analysis to Detect Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review, we evaluate 2 of the most used trigger tools according to the criteria of the World Health Organization for evaluating methods.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for studies (2000-2017). Studies were included if medical record review (MRR) was performed with either the Global Trigger Tool or the Harvard Medical Practice Study in a hospital population. Quality assessment was performed in duplicate. Fifty studies were included, and results were reported for every criterion separately.

RESULTS

Medical record review reveals more adverse events (AEs) than any other method. However, at the same time, it detects different AEs. The costs of an AE were on average €4296. Considerable efforts have been made worldwide in health care to improve safety and to reduce errors. These have resulted in some positive effects. The literature showed that MRR is focused on several domains of quality of care and seems suitable for both small and large cohorts. Furthermore, we found a moderate to substantial agreement for the presence of a trigger and a moderate to good agreement for the presence of an AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical record review with a trigger tool is a reasonably well-researched method for the evaluation of the medical records for AEs. However, looking at the World Health Organization criteria, much research is still lacking or of moderate quality. Especially for the cost of detecting AEs, valuable information is missing. Moreover, knowledge of how MRR changes quality and safety of care should be evaluated.

Physician factors associated with medical errors in Norwegian primary care emergency services

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the associations between characteristics of physicians working in primary care emergency units (PCEUs) and the outcome of assessments of the medical records.

DESIGN

Data from a previous case-control study was used to evaluate factors related to medical errors.

SETTING

Ten Norwegian PCEUs were included.

SUBJECTS

Physicians that had evoked a patient complaint, and a random sample of three physicians from the same PCEU and time period as the physician who had evoked a complaint. Recorded physician characteristics were: gender, seniority, citizenship at, and years after authorization as a physician, specialty in general practice, and workload at the PCEU. Main outcome measures: Assessments of the medical records: errors that may have led to harm, no medical error, or inconclusive.

RESULTS

In the complaint group 77 physicians were included, and in the random sample group 217. In the first group, 53.2% of the medical records were assessed as revealing medical errors. In the random sample group, this percentage was 3.2. In the complaint group the percentages for no-error and inconclusive for the female physicians were 30.8 and 15.4; and for the male physicians 9.8 and 27.3, p = 0.027.

CONCLUSION

In the group of complaints there was a higher percentage with no assessed medical error, and a lower percentage with inconclusive assessments of medical errors, among female physicians compared to their male colleagues. We found no other physician factors that were associated with assessed medical errors. Future research should focus on the underlying elements of these findings.Key pointsMedical errors are among the leading causes of death and they are essentially avoidable. Primary care emergency units are a vulnerable arena for committing medical errors.By assessing the medical records of a group of physicians who had evoked a complaint, no differences related to physician factors were revealed in the incidence of medical errors.In the group of female physicians, the proportion of no-errors, was higher, and the percentage of inconclusive medical records was lower than for their male colleagues.The Norwegian regulations on independent participation in PCEUs may have modulated these results.

How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review

Background

As compared to other domains of healthcare, little is known about patient safety incidents (PSIs) in prehospital care. The aims of our systematic review were to identify how the prevalence and level of harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care are assessed; the frequency of PSIs in prehospital care; and the harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care.

Method

Searches were conducted of Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete and the grey literature. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies reporting data on number/frequency of PSIs and/or harm associated with PSIs were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from the studies and carried out a critical appraisal using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).

Results

Of the 22 included papers, 16 (73%) used data from record reviews, and 6 (27%) from incident reports. The frequency of PSIs in prehospital care was found to be a median of 5.9 per 100 records/transports/patients. A higher prevalence of PSIs was identified within studies that used record review data (9.9 per 100 records/transports/patients) as compared to incident reports (0.3 per records/transports/patients). Across the studies that reported harm, a median of 15.6% of PSIs were found to result in harm. Studies that utilized record review data reported that a median of 6.5% of the PSIs resulted in harm. For data from incident reporting systems, a median of 54.6% of incidents were associated with harm. The mean QATSDD score was 25.6 (SD = 4.1, range = 16–34).

Conclusions

This systematic review gives direction as to how to advance methods for identifying PSIs in prehospital care and assessing the extent to which patients are harmed.

A meta-review of methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care

Background

A major barrier to safety improvement in primary care is a lack of safety data. The aims of this systematic meta-review (registration: CRD42021224367) were to identify systematic reviews of studies that examine methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care; classify the methods of measuring and monitoring safety in the included systematic reviews using the five safety domains of Vincent et al.’s framework and use this information to make recommendations for improving the measurement and monitoring of safety in primary care.

Methods

Four databases (Medline, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science and CINAHL) and the grey literature were screened in November 2020, with searches updated in January 2021. Systematic reviews were included if they addressed the measurement of patient safety in primary care and were published in English. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews.

Results

A total of 6904 papers were screened, with 13 systematic reviews included. A commonly reported method of measuring ‘past harm’ was through patient record review. The most frequent methods for assessing the ‘reliability of safety critical processes’ were checklists, observations and surveys of staff. Methods used to assess ‘sensitivity to operations’ included observation, staff surveys, interviews, focus groups, active monitoring and simulated patients. Safety climate surveys were a commonly used as an approach to assess ‘anticipation and preparedness’. A number of the reviews concluded that safety data could, and should, be used for ‘integration and learning’. The main limitation of the meta-review was that it was of systematic reviews only.

Conclusions

Many of the methods for measuring and monitoring safety are readily available, quick to administer, do not require external involvement and are inexpensive. However, there is still a need to improve the psychometric properties of many measures. Researchers must support the development of psychometrically sound safety measures that do not over burden primary care practitioners. Policymakers must consider how primary care practitioners can be supported to implement these measures.

Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe the epidemiology of patient safety (PS) incidents registered in an electronic notification system in primary care (PC) health centres; (2) to define a risk map; and (3) to identify the critical areas where intervention is needed.

DESIGN

Descriptive analytical study of incidents reported from 1 January to 31 December 2018, on the TPSC Cloud™ platform (The Patient Safety Company) accessible from the corporate website (Intranet) of the regional public health service.

SETTING

24 Catalan Institute of Health PC health centres of the Tarragona region (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

Professionals from the PC health centres and a Patient Safety Functional Unit.

MEASUREMENTS

Data obtained from records voluntarily submitted to an electronic, standardised and anonymised form. Data recorded: healthcare unit, notifier, type of incident, risk matrix, causal and contributing factors, preventability, level of resolution and improvement actions.

RESULTS

A total of 1544 reports were reviewed and 1129 PS incidents were analysed: 25.0% of incidents did not reach the patient; 66.5% reached the patient without causing harm, and 8.5% caused adverse events. Nurses provided half of the reports (48.5%), while doctors reported more adverse events (70.8%; p < 0.01). Of the 96 adverse events, 46.9% only required observation, 34.4% caused temporary damage that required treatment, 13.5% required (or prolonged) hospitalization, and 5.2% caused severe permanent damage and/or a situation close to death. Notably, 99.2% were considered preventable. The main critical areas were: communication (27.8%), clinical-administrative management (25.1%), care delivery (23.5%) and medicines (18.4%); few incidents were related to diagnosis (3.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

PS incident notification applications are adequate for reporting incidents and adverse events associated with healthcare. Approximately 75% and 10% of incidents reach the patient and cause some damage, respectively, and most cases are considered preventable. Adequate and strengthened risk management of critical areas is required to improve PS.

Effectiveness of New Tools to Define an Up-to-Date Patient Safety Risk Map: A Primary Care Study Protocol

Background: Reducing incidents related to health care interventions to improve patient safety is a health policy priority. To strengthen a culture of safety, reporting incidents is essential. This study aims to define a patient safety risk map using the description and analysis of incidents within a primary care region with a prior patient safety improvement strategy organisationally developed and promoted. Methods: The study will be conducted in two phases: (1) a cross-sectional descriptive observational study to describe reported incidents; and (2) a quasi-experimental study to compare reported incidents. The study will take place in the Camp de Tarragona Primary Care Management (Catalan Institute of Health). In Phase 1, all reactive notifications collected within one year (2018) will be analysed; during Phase 2, all proactive notifications of the second and third weeks of June 2019 will be analysed. Adverse events will also be assessed. Phases 1 and 2 will use a digital platform and the proactive tool proSP to notify and analyse incidents related to patient safety. Expected Results: To obtain an up-to-date, primary care patient safety risk map to prioritise strategies that result in safer practices.

Medication-related harm in New Zealand general practice: a retrospective records review

Background

The extent of medication-related harm in general practice is unknown.

Aim

To identify and describe all medication-related harm in electronic general practice records. The secondary aim was to investigate factors potentially associated with medication-related harm.

Design and setting

Retrospective cohort records review study in 44 randomly selected New Zealand general practices for the 3 years 2011–2013.

Method

Eight GPs reviewed 9076 randomly selected patient records. Medication-related harms were identified when the causal agent was prescribed in general practice. Harms were coded by type, preventability, and severity. The number and proportion of patients who experienced medication-related harm was calculated. Weighted logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with harm.

Results

In total, 976 of 9076 patients (10.8%) experienced 1762 medication-related harms over 3 years. After weighting, the incidence rate of all medication-related harms was 73.9 harms per 1000 patient–years, and the incidence of preventable, or potentially preventable, medication-related harms was 15.6 per 1000 patient–years. Most harms were minor (n = 1385/1762, 78.6%), but around one in five harms were moderate or severe (n = 373/1762, 21.2%); three patients died. Eighteen study patients were hospitalised; after weighting this correlates to a hospitalisation rate of 1.1 per 1000 patient–years. Increased age, number of consultations, and number of medications were associated with increased risk of medication-related harm. Cardiovascular medications, antineoplastic and immunomodulatory agents, and anticoagulants caused most harm by frequency and severity.

Conclusion

Medication-related harm in general practice is common. This study adds to the evidence about the risk posed by medication in the real world. Findings can be used to inform decision making in general practice.

Epidemiology of healthcare harm in New Zealand general practice: a retrospective records review study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the epidemiology of healthcare harm observable in general practice records.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort records review study.

SETTING

72 general practice clinics were randomly selected from all 988 New Zealand clinics stratified by rurality and size; 44 clinics consented to participate.

PARTICIPANTS

9076 patient records were randomly selected from participating clinics.

INTERVENTION

Eight general practitioners examined patient records (2011-2013) to identify harms, harm severity and preventability. Analyses were weighted to account for the stratified sampling design and generalise findings to all New Zealand patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Healthcare harm, severity and preventability.

RESULTS

Reviewers identified 2972 harms affecting 1505 patients aged 0-102 years. Most patients (82.0%, weighted) experienced no harm. The estimated incidence of harm was 123 per 1000 patient-years. Most harms (2160; 72.7%, 72.4% weighted) were minor, 661 (22.2%, 22.8% weighted) were moderate, and 135 (4.5%, 4.4% weighted) severe. Eleven patients died, five following a preventable harm. Of the non-fatal harms, 2411 (81.6%, 79.4% weighted) were considered not preventable. Increasing age and number of consultations were associated with increased odds of harm. Compared with patients aged ≤49 years, patients aged 50-69 had an OR of 1.77 (95% CI 1.61 to 1.94), ≥70 years OR 3.23 (95% CI 2.37 to 4.41). Compared with patients with ≤3 consultations, patients with 4-12 consultations had an OR of 7.14 (95% CI 5.21 to 9.79); ≥13 consultations OR 30.06 (95% CI 21.70 to 41.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategic balancing of healthcare risks and benefits may improve patient safety but will not necessarily eliminate harms, which often arise from standard care. Reducing harms considered 'not preventable' remains a laudable challenge.

Continuous, risk-based, consultation peer review in out-of-hours general practice: a qualitative interview study of the benefits and limitations

Background

Systems to detect and minimise unwarranted variation in clinician practice are crucial to ensure increasingly multidisciplinary healthcare workforces are supported to practise to their full potential. Such systems are limited in English general practice settings, with implications for the efficiency and safety of care.

Aim

To evaluate the benefits and limitations of a continuous, risk-based, consultation peer-review system used for 10 years by an out-of-hours general practice service in Bristol, UK.

Design and setting

A qualitative study in South West England.

Method

Semi-structured interviews with intervention users (clinicians, peer reviewers, and clinical management), analysed by inductive thematic analysis and integrated into a programme theory.

Results

Twenty clinicians were interviewed between September 2018 and January 2019. Interviewees indicated that the intervention supported clinician learning through improved peer feedback, highlighting learning needs and validating practice. It was compared favourably with existing structures of ensuring clinician competence, supporting standardisation of supervision, clinical governance, and learning culture. These benefits were potentially limited by intervention factors such as differential feedback quality between clinician groups, the efficiency of methods to identify learning needs, and limitations of assessments based on written clinical notes. Contextual factors such as clinician experience, motivation, and organisational learning culture influenced the perception of the intervention as a support or a stressor.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrate the potential of continuous, risk-based, consultation peer review to support clinicians in an increasingly multidisciplinary general practice workforce to efficiently and safely practise to their full potential. The programme theory provides a theoretical basis to maximise the benefits and accommodate the potential limitations of this methodology

Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies

BACKGROUND

In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research.

METHODS

Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD (n=197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses.

RESULTS

Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

[Avoidable adverse events in primary care. Retrospective cohort study to determine their frequency and severity]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of avoidable adverse events (AAEs) in Primary Care (PC).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

LOCATION

Family medicine and paediatric clinics in Andalusia, Aragon, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Madrid, Navarre, and Valencia.

PARTICIPANTS

A review was performed on a designated sample of 2,397 medical records (95% confidence level and 2% accuracy). The sample was stratified by age group as regards the frequency of physician consultations and considering equal distribution of male and female patients.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Number and severity of identified AAEs from February 2018 to September 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 2,557 medical records were reviewed (1,928, 75.4% of adult patients, and 629, 24.6% paediatrics). A total of 182 (7.1%, 95% CI 6.1-8.1%) AAEs that affected 168 patients were identified, which included 7.6% (95% CI 6.4-8.8%) in adults and 5.7% (95% CI 3.9-7.5%) in paediatric patients. The number of AAEs in women was higher than in men (P = 0.006). The incidence of AAEs in boys and girls was similar (P = 0.3). Permanent damage was caused by AAEs in 6 (4.1%) adult patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Seeking formulas to increase patient safety in PC should remain a priority objective, particularly in female patients and in paediatrics. One in 24 AAEs causes serious and permanent damage in adults.

Physician factors associated with increased risk for complaints in primary care emergency services: a case - control study

BACKGROUND

Patient safety incidents defined as any unintended or unexpected incident that could have or were judged to have led to patient harm, are reported as relatively common. In this study patient complaints have been used as an indicator to uncover the occurrence of patient safety incidents in primary care emergency units (PCEUs) in Norway.

METHODS

Ten PCEUs in major cities and rural parts of Norway participated. These units cover one third of the Norwegian population. A case-control design was applied. The case was the physician that evoked a complaint. The controls were three randomly chosen physicians from the same PCEU as the physician having evoked the complaint. The following variables regarding the physicians were chosen: gender, citizenship at, and years after authorization as physician, and specialty in general practice. The magnitude of patient contact was defined as the workload at the PCEU. The physicians' characteristics and workload were extracted from the medical records from the fourteen-day period prior to the consultation that elicited the complaint. The rest of the variables were then obtained from the Norwegian physician position register. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratio for complaints both unadjusted and adjusted for the independent variables. The data were analyzed using SPSS (Version25) and STATA.

RESULTS

A total of 78 cases and 217 controls were included during 18 months (September 1st 2015 till March 1st 2017). The risk of evoking a complaint was significantly higher for physicians without specialty in general practice, and lower for those with medium low and medium high workload compared to physicians with no duty during the fourteen-day period prior to the index consultation. The limited strength of the study did not make it possible to assess any correlation between workload and the other variables (physician's gender, seniority and citizenship at time of authorization).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous medical training and achieving the specialty in general practice were decisively associated with a reduced risk for complaints in primary care emergency services. Future research should focus on elements promoting quality of care such as continuing education, duty rosters and other structural and organizational factors.

Electronic charts do not facilitate the recognition of patient hazards by advanced medical students: A randomized controlled study

Chart review is an important tool to identify patient hazards. Most advanced medical students perform poorly during chart review but can learn how to identify patient hazards context-independently. Many hospitals have implemented electronic health records, which enhance patient safety but also pose challenges. We investigated whether electronic charts impair advanced medical students’ recognition of patient hazards compared with traditional paper charts. Fifth-year medical students were randomized into two equal groups. Both groups attended a lecture on patient hazards and a training session on handling electronic health records. One group reviewed an electronic chart with 12 standardized patient hazards and then reviewed another case in a paper chart; the other group reviewed the charts in reverse order. The two case scenarios (diabetes and gastrointestinal bleeding) were used as the first and second case equally often. After each case, the students were briefed about the patient safety hazards. In total, 78.5% of the students handed in their notes for evaluation. Two blinded raters independently assessed the number of patient hazards addressed in the students’ notes. For the diabetes case, the students identified a median of 4.0 hazards [25%–75% quantiles (Q25–Q75): 2.0–5.5] in the electronic chart and 5.0 hazards (Q25–Q75: 3.0–6.75) in the paper chart (equivalence testing, p = 0.005). For the gastrointestinal bleeding case, the students identified a median of 5.0 hazards (Q25–Q75: 4.0–6.0) in the electronic chart and 5.0 hazards (Q25–Q75: 3.0–6.0) in the paper chart (equivalence testing, p < 0.001). We detected no improvement between the first case [median 5.0 (Q25–Q75: 3.0–6.0)] and second case [median, 5.0 (Q25–Q75: 3.0–6.0); p < 0.001, test for equivalence]. Electronic charts do not seem to facilitate advanced medical students’ recognition of patient hazards during chart review and may impair expertise formation.

Safety in primary care (SAP-C): a randomised, controlled feasibility study in two different healthcare systems

BACKGROUND

Patient safety research is conducted predominantly in hospital settings, with a dearth of insight from primary care, despite suggestions that 2.2% of primary care consultations result in a patient safety incident. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an intervention intended to improve patient safety in general practice.

METHODS

A randomised controlled feasibility study was conducted with general practices in the Republic of Ireland (N = 9) and Northern Ireland (N = 2), randomly assigned to the intervention (N = 5) or control (N = 6) group. The nine-month intervention consisted of: 1) repeated safety climate (SC) measurement (using GP-SafeQuest questionnaire) and feedback (comparative anonymised practice-level SC data), and 2) patient record reviews using a specialised trigger tool to identify instances of undetected patient harm. For control practices, SC was measured at baseline and study end only. The intervention's perceived usefulness and feasibility were explored via an end-of-study questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Thirteen practices were invited; 11 participated; 10 completed the study. At baseline, 84.8% of intervention practice staff (39/46) and 77.8% (42/54) of control practice staff completed the SC questionnaire; at the study terminus, 78.3% (36/46) of intervention practice staff and 68.5% (37/54) of control practice staff did so. Changes in SC scores, indicating improvement, were observed among the intervention practices but not in the control group. The trigger tool was applied to 188 patient records; patient safety incidents of varying severity were detected in 19.1% (36/188). Overall, 59% of intervention practice team members completed the end-of-study questionnaire, with the majority in both healthcare systems responding positively about the intervention. Interviews (N = 9) identified the intervention's usefulness in informing practice management and patient safety issues, time as a barrier to its use, and the value of group discussion of feedback.

CONCLUSION

This feasibility study suggests that a definitive randomised controlled trial of the intervention is warranted. Our findings suggest that the intervention is feasible, useful, and sustainable. Practices were willing to be recruited into the study, response and retention rates were acceptable, and there is possible evidence of a positive effect of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial registration number is: ISRCTN11426121 (retrospectively registered 12th June 2018).