How safe is primary care? A systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Improving patient safety is at the forefront of policy and practice. While considerable progress has been made in understanding the frequency, causes and consequences of error in hospitals, less is known about the safety of primary care. OBJECTIVE: We investigated how often patient safety incidents occur in primary care and how often these were associated with patient harm. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched 18 databases and contacted international experts to identify published and unpublished studies available between 1 January 1980 and 31 July 2014. Patient safety incidents of any type were eligible. Eligible studies were critically appraised using validated instruments and data were descriptively and narratively synthesised. FINDINGS: Nine systematic reviews and 100 primary studies were included. Studies reported between <1 and 24 patient safety incidents per 100 consultations. The median from population-based record review studies was 2-3 incidents for every 100 consultations/records reviewed. It was estimated that around 4% of these incidents may be associated with severe harm, defined as significantly impacting on a patient's well-being, including long-term physical or psychological issues or death (range <1% to 44% of incidents). Incidents relating to diagnosis and prescribing were most likely to result in severe harm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Millions of people throughout the world use primary care services on any given day. This review suggests that safety incidents are relatively common, but most do not result in serious harm that reaches the patient. Diagnostic and prescribing incidents are the most likely to result in avoidable harm. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42012002304).

Ameliorating pain in nursing homes: a collaborative quality-improvement project.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a multifaceted intervention to improve pain-management processes of care and outcomes in nursing homes. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, pretest/posttest. SETTING: Nursing homes in Rhode Island. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one facilities. INTERVENTION: This project used a multifaceted collaborative intervention involving audit and feedback of pain management, education, training, coaching using rapid-cycle quality-improvement techniques, and inter-nursing home collaboration. MEASUREMENTS: Pain-management processes of care and outcomes, measured using chart review and the Minimum Data Set. RESULTS: Of 21 facilities, 17 completed the project. Postintervention, nursing homes increased the use of appropriate pain assessments (3.9% vs 43.8%, P<.001), pain intensity scales (15.6% vs 73.9%, P<.001), and nonpharmacological treatments (40.5% vs 81.9%, P<.001). Prescriptions of World Health Organization Step II or Step III pain medications for residents with daily moderate or severe pain showed trends towards improvement (40.8% vs 50.6%, P=.057), but prescription of any pain medication (93.3% vs 94.6%, P=.710), change in pain medication (29.0% vs 30.1%, P=.386), and prescription of pain medications on a regularly scheduled basis (67.9% vs 69.5%, P=.370) did not. There was a 41.1% reduction in prevalence of pain (12.2% vs 7.2%, P=.032) between the pre- and postintervention time periods in the nursing homes that completed the project, whereas all the other facilities in Rhode Island (n=72) had only a 12.1% reduction (12.7% vs 11.2%, P=.286) during the same period. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted intervention improved pain-management process and outcome measures in nursing homes.