Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England

The benefits and opportunities: Engaging patients in identifying and reporting patient safety incidents

There is growing recognition that patients can and should be engaged in the identification of patient safety incidents arising during their experiences across health systems. In this article, we describe the benefits that can be harnessed from engaging patients in reporting patient safety incidents; identify opportunities to support patient engagement in reporting and learning from patient safety incidents; and describe the potential role of health leaders in connecting patient experience and patient safety using patient-reported patient safety incident data.

Patient safety incidents in Irish general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory practice level analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is defined as the prevention of harm to patients and aims to prevent errors. This analysis explores factors associated with the reported occurrence of patient safety incidents (PSIs) in general practices in Ireland at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The PRICOV-19 was a cross-sectional study to record the (re)organisation of care provided in general practice and changes implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in 38 countries. Primary outcomes include three potential scenarios of PSIs: delayed care due to practice factors, delayed care due to patient factors, and delayed care due to triage. Exploratory variables included demographic and organisational characteristics, triage, collaboration, and strategies to safeguard staff members' well-being.

RESULTS

Of the 172 participating Irish general practices, 71% (n = 122) recorded at least one potential PSI. The most frequent incident was delayed care due to patient factors (65%), followed by practice (33%) and triage (30%). Multivariate analysis showed that delayed care due to patient factors was associated with changes in the process of repeat prescriptions (OR 6.7 [CI 95% 2.5 to 19.6]). Delayed care due to practice factors was associated with suburbs/small towns (OR 4.2 [1.1 to 19.8]) and structural changes to the reception (OR 3.5 [1.2 to 11.4]). While delayed care due to patient factors was associated with having a practice population of 6000-7999 patients (OR 4.7 [1.1 to 27.6]) and delayed care due to practice factors was associated with having a practice population of 2000-3999 patients (OR 4.2 [1.2 to 17.1]). No linear associations were observed with higher or lower patient numbers for any factor. Delayed care due to triage was not associated with any exploratory variables.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in dramatic changes in the delivery of care through general practices in Ireland. Few factors were associated with the reported occurrence of PSIs, and these did not show consistent patterns. Sustained improvements were made in relation to repeat prescriptions. The lack of consistent patterns, potentially confirms that the autonomous decisions made in general practice in response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic could have benefitted patient safety (See Graphical abstract).

Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: Comparing APEAS-2007 (Spanish Patient Safety Adverse Events Study in Primary Care) with Data from a Health Area in Catalonia (Spain) in 2019

The initial APEAS study, conducted in June 2007, examined adverse events (AEs) in Spanish Primary Healthcare (PHC). Since then, significant changes have occurred in healthcare systems. To evaluate these changes, a study was conducted in the Camp de Tarragona PHC region (CTPHC) in June 2019. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify AEs in 20 PHC centres in Camp de Tarragona. Data collection used an online questionnaire adapted from APEAS-2007, and a comparative statistical analysis between APEAS-2007 and CTPHC-2019 was performed. The results revealed an increase in nursing notifications and a decrease in notifications from family doctors. Furthermore, fewer AEs were reported overall, particularly in medication-related incidents and healthcare-associated infections, with an increase noted in no-harm incidents. However, AEs related to worsened clinical outcomes, communication issues, care management, and administrative errors increased. Concerning severity, there was a decrease in severe AEs, coupled with an increase in moderate AEs. Despite family doctors perceiving a reduction in medication-related incidents, the overall preventability of AEs remained unchanged. In conclusion, the reporting patterns, nature, and causal factors of AEs in Spanish PHC have evolved over time. While there has been a decrease in medication-related incidents and severe AEs, challenges persist in communication, care management, and clinical outcomes. Although professionals reported reduced severity, the perception of preventability remains an area that requires attention.

'Safety is about partnership': Safety through the lens of patients and caregivers

INTRODUCTION

Creating safer care is a high priority across healthcare systems. Despite this, most systems tend to focus on mitigating past harm, not creating proactive solutions. Managers and staff identify safety threats often with little input from patients and their caregivers during their health encounters.

METHODS

This is a qualitative descriptive study utilizing focus groups and one-to-one interviews with patients and caregivers who were currently using (or had previously used) services in health systems across Canada. Data were analysed via inductive thematic analysis to understand existing and desired strategies to promote safer and better quality care from the perspectives of patients and caregivers.

FINDINGS

In our analysis, we identified three key themes (safety strategies) from patients' and caregivers' perspectives and experiences: Using Tools and Approaches for Engaging Patients and Caregivers in their Care; Having Accountability Processes and Mechanisms for Safe Care; and Enabling Patients and Caregivers Access to Information.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety is more than the absence of harm. Our findings outline a number of suggestions from patients and caregivers on how to make care safer, ranging from being valued on teams, participating as members of quality improvement tables, having access to health information, having access to an advocate to help make sense of information and having processes in place for disclosure and closure. Future work can further refine, implement and evaluate these strategies in practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS

An advisory group guided the research and was co-chaired by a patient partner. Members of the advisory group spanned patient and caregiver organizations and health sectors across Canada and included three patient partners and leaders who work closely with patients and caregivers in their day-to-day work. In the research itself, we engaged 28 patients and caregivers from across Canada to learn about their safety experiences and learn what safer care looks like from their perspectives.

Safer Patients Empowered to Engage and Communicate about Health (SPEECH) in primary care: a feasibility study and process evaluation of an intervention for older people with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity)

BACKGROUND

Older people with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) (MLTC-M) experience difficulties accessing and interacting with health and care services. Breakdowns in communication between patients and staff can threaten patient safety. To improve communication and reduce risks to patient safety in primary care, we developed an intervention: Safer Patients Empowered to Engage and Communicate about Health (SPEECH). SPEECH comprises a booklet for patients and an associated guide for staff. The booklet is designed to provide patients with information about staff and services, skills to prepare and explain, and confidence to speak up and ask.

METHODS

A single-arm mixed methods feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. General practices in the North West of England were recruited. Participating practices invited patients aged 65+ with MLTC-M who had an appointment scheduled during the study period. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires at baseline and follow-up (four to eight weeks after being sent the patient booklet), including the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure, Empowerment Scale, Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire, and Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety. Staff completed questionnaires at the end of the study period. A sub-sample of patients and staff were interviewed about the study processes and intervention. Patients and the public were involved in all aspects of the study, from generation of the initial idea to interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

Our target of four general practices were recruited within 50 days of the study information being sent out. A fifth practice was recruited later to boost patient recruitment. We received expressions of interest from 55 patients (approx. 12% of those invited). Our target of 40 patient participants completed baseline questionnaires and were sent the SPEECH booklet. Of these, 38 (95%) completed follow-up. Patients found the intervention and study processes acceptable, and staff found the intervention acceptable and feasible to deliver.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest the intervention is acceptable, and it would be feasible to deliver a trial to assess effectiveness. Prior to further evaluation, study processes and the intervention will be updated to incorporate suggestions from participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN13196605: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN13196605 ).

Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript.

RESULTS

We identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

We have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

'Development and psychometric evaluation of the safety feeling scale in adult patients at hospital: Exploratory sequential mixed method'

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop and examine psychometric properties of the safety feeling scale (SFS) in adult patients to assess their sense of safety during a hospital stay.

DESIGN

Mixed methods design. A SQUIRE checklist was used.

METHODS

This is a study with two phases of scale development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the scale. In the first phase, the concept of 'safety feeling' was analysed using a hybrid model. Thus, a systematic review and then a qualitative study with hospitalized patients (n = 31) were conducted by conventional content analysis. In the psychometric phase, factorial validity, reliability, feasibility, and responsiveness of the scale were evaluated by different tests in various samples.

RESULTS

After integrating the results of the systematic review and qualitative study, a scale item pool with 84 items was developed. In the psychometric phase, 12 items with four factors were specified; 'effective care,' 'confidence in the healthcare team,' 'emotional enrichment' and 'hygienic facilities,' explaining 51% of the total variance of the scale. They were confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency and stability of the scale were satisfactory. Feasibility and responsiveness were also acceptable.

Patients' Perceptions of Safety in Primary Healthcare Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Qassim Region of Saudi Arabia

This study assessed patients' perceptions of safety and experiences in primary healthcare in the Qassim region of Saudi Arabia. Between July and September 2022, 730 patients from primary healthcare centers were surveyed using a multi-staged cluster random sampling approach. The Patient-Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire was used to measure patients' perceived safety and experience in primary healthcare settings within the past year. Descriptive analyses were performed to report patients' perceived safety experiences. The statistical analysis examined individual items and scales. A considerable proportion of patients reported encountering safety problems, ranging from 11% (vaccine-related) to 27% (diagnosis-related). Diagnostic errors were the most common perceived safety problem (26.7%), followed by communication issues (24.1%) and medication errors (16.3%). Between 26% and 40% experienced harm, including financial problems (40%), increased care needs (32.4%), physical health issues (32%), limitations in activities (30.6%), increased healthcare needs (30.2%), and mental health concerns (26.8%). Patient-reported safety experiences reported in our study offer valuable insights into primary care safety in Saudi Arabia. Collecting routine patient feedback is crucial for addressing identified safety problems and implementing standardized procedures.

[The Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030: Identifying actions for safer primary health care]

The 74th World Health Assembly adopted in May 2021 the "Global Patient Safety Action Plan: 2021-2030" to enhance patient safety as an essential component in the design, procedures and performance evaluation of health systems worldwide. It is a strategic plan that guides country governments, health sector entities, health organisations and the World Health Organisation secretariat on how to implement the assembly's patient safety resolution. Deployment of the plan will strengthen the quality and safety of health systems worldwide by spanning the entire continuum of people's health care from diagnosis to treatment and care, reducing the likelihood of harm in the course of care. The Declaration on Primary Health Care during the Global Conference on Primary Health Care in Astana, 2018, urged countries to strengthen their primary health care systems as an essential step towards achieving universal health coverage and providing access to safe, quality care without financial loss. The deployment of the Global Patient Safety Action Plan in primary care is therefore a high-priority health policy action. The Action Plan is structured into 6 strategic objectives with 35 strategic actions. We present an analysis of the strategic actions regarding healthcare organizations and the challenges ahead for their particular deployment in primary health care settings.