Facilitators and barriers to safer care in Scottish general practice: a qualitative study of the implementation of the trigger review method using normalisation process theory

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.

Protocol for a qualitative study to explore acceptability, barriers and facilitators of the implementation of new teleophthalmology technologies between community optometry practices and hospital eye services

INTRODUCTION

Novel teleophthalmology technologies have the potential to reduce unnecessary and inaccurate referrals between community optometry practices and hospital eye services and as a result improve patients' access to appropriate and timely eye care. However, little is known about the acceptability and facilitators and barriers to the implementations of these technologies in real life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A theoretically informed, qualitative study will explore patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives on teleophthalmology and Artificial Intelligence Decision Support System models of care. A combination of situated observations in community optometry practices and hospital eye services, semistructured qualitative interviews with patients and healthcare professionals and self-audiorecordings of healthcare professionals will be conducted. Participants will be purposively selected from 4 to 5 hospital eye services and 6-8 affiliated community optometry practices. The aim will be to recruit 30-36 patients and 30 healthcare professionals from hospital eye services and community optometry practices. All interviews will be audiorecorded, with participants' permission, and transcribed verbatim. Data from interviews, observations and self-audiorecordings will be analysed thematically and will be informed by normalisation process theory and an inductive approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been received from London-Bromley research ethics committee. Findings will be reported through academic journals and conferences in ophthalmology, health services research, management studies and human-computer interaction.

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

From policy to patient: Using a socio-ecological framework to explore the factors influencing safe practice in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

The recent and rapid changes in the model of primary care delivery have led to an increased focus on patient safety in what is one of the most diverse and complex healthcare settings. However, previous initiatives have failed to deliver the expected improvements, leading to calls for a better understanding of how a range of personal and contextual factors influence the decisions and behaviours of individual care providers.

METHODS

The socio-ecological framework, successfully used in public health settings to interpret the complex influences on individual behaviours, enabled a post-hoc deductive analysis of a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with clinical staff and senior managers at a range of practices across five geographically diverse regions in England to explore their perspectives on the factors that influence safe practice.

RESULTS

The five levels of the socio-ecological framework successfully helped unpick the myriad influences on safe primary care practice, including, at the Individual level, assumptions of responsibility and previous experience; at the Interpersonal, equitable communication in support of a team ethos; at the Organisational, the physical infrastructure, size and complexity of the practice; at the Community, the health profile and literacy of patients; and at the Policy, meeting the demands of competing local and national governing bodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Coherent, realistic and achievable goals are needed for improving patient safety in primary care addressing personal, organisational and environmental factors. Such goals and the tools and interventions designed to meet them must therefore be sympathetic to the demands on resources and the characteristics of patients, staff, and their organisations. Using the framework to interpret our findings provided much needed insight into the impact of these varying influences, and highlights the importance of recognising and communicating the relationship between specific contextual factors and the ability of individual providers to provide safe primary care.