The patient's "story": an examination of patient-reported safety incidents in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incidents (PSIs) are typically studied through engagement with healthcare providers, without input from patients despite their privileged viewpoint of care experiences. OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential of the patient viewpoint as a lens for future safety improvement initiatives, by: (i) collecting and analysing patients' accounts of PSIs; and (ii) comparing patient and clinician perceptions of PSIs. METHODS: Firstly, Critical Incident Technique (CIT) interviews were used to obtain rich descriptions of PSIs, which were then condensed into patient stories. Deductive content analysis was used to code the safety deficiencies described in patient stories using patient-derived safety categories. Secondly, General Practitioners (GPs) and patients individually rated the perceived severity and likelihood of each story. RESULTS: A total of 32 eligible patient stories were obtained from 25 interviews. Stories commonly described deficiencies related to communication, staff performance, and compassion/dignity/respect. There were significant differences in GP (n = 14) and patient (n = 11) severity and likelihood ratings. GPs were significantly more likely to consider stories to be a lower severity, and occurring with a lower frequency than patients. CONCLUSION: Elicitation of the patient perspective using the CIT allowed for the rich description of safety deficiencies that occur in general practice. Given that patients bring a unique and important viewpoint on safety, there is a need to make greater efforts to include the patient perspective of safety in healthcare.

A randomized controlled trial of SAFMEDS to improve chest radiograph interpretation among medical students.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Junior doctors find chest radiograph (CXR) interpretation challenging, and commonly make diagnostic errors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of SAFMEDS in teaching undergraduate medical students to identify important chest abnormalities in radiology imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial design was utilized. Third-year medical students were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 20), who received the SAFMEDS intervention, or a control group (n = 20), who did not receive the intervention. Three participants (one intervention, two control) withdrew from participation. Percentage accuracy in CXR interpretation was assessed at three timepoints (baseline, post-test, and retention). A series of one-way between-subjects' analyses of covariance, with percentage accuracy at the pre-test timepoint entered as the covariate, were conducted. RESULTS: Large effect sizes of the SAFMEDS intervention were observed at post-test and retention (η2 = 0.67, η2 = 0.58 respectively), with the intervention group demonstrating significantly higher percentage accuracy in CXR interpretation as compared to the control group at both timepoints. Intervention group performance decreased by 5.26% (SD = 9.80) from post-test to retention. Twelve intervention group participants (63.2%) met the fluency criteria. Despite large effect sizes, there were no significant differences in post-test or retention performance between fluent and non-fluent participants (η2 = 0.17 and η2 = 0.2 respectively). CONCLUSION: SAFMEDS offers an effective adjunct to usual teaching. Future research could focus on examining the effect of fluency with a larger sample, in addition the expansion of the SAFMEDS approach, and its' application to other health profession populations.

A Systematic Review of Patient-Report Safety Climate Measures in Health Care.

OBJECTIVES: Patients are a valuable, yet underutilized source of information for safety measurement and improvement in health care. The aim of this review was to identify patient-report safety climate (SC) measures described in the literature, analyze the included items to consider their alignment with previously established SC domains, evaluate their validity and reliability, and make recommendations for best practice in using patient-report measures of SC in health care. METHODS: Searches were conducted, with no limit on publication year, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Complete in November 2019. Reference lists of included studies and existing reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies that described the development or use of a patient-report measure to assess SC in health care were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from studies and applied a quality appraisal tool. RESULTS: A total of 5060 studies were screened, with 44 included. Included studies described 31 different SC measures. There was much variability in the coverage of SC domains across included measures. Poor measure quality was marked by inadequacies in the testing and reporting of validity and reliability. There was also a lack of usability testing among measures. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified the extant patient-reported SC measures in health care and demonstrated significant variance in their coverage of SC domains, validity and reliability, and usability. Findings suggest a pressing need for a stand-alone measure that has a high validity and reliability, and assess core SC domains from the patient perspective, particularly in primary care.

A systematic review of the use of positive deviance approaches in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Positive Deviance (PD) approach focuses on identifying and learning from those who demonstrate exceptional performance despite facing similar resource constraints to others. Recently, it has been embraced to improve the quality of patient care in a variety of healthcare domains. PD may offer one means of enacting effective quality improvement in primary care. OBJECTIVE(S): This review aimed to synthesize the extant research on applications of the PD approach in primary care. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched; MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Web of Science. Studies reporting original data on applications of the PD approach, as described by the PD framework, in primary care were included, and data extracted. Thematic analysis was used to classify positively deviant factors and to develop a conceptual framework. Methodological quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS). RESULTS: In total, 27 studies were included in the review. Studies most frequently addressed Stages 1 and 2 of the PD framework, and targeted 5 core features of primary care; effectiveness, chronic disease management, preventative care, prescribing behaviour, and health promotion. In total, 268 factors characteristic of exceptional care were identified and synthesized into a framework of 37 themes across 7 system levels. CONCLUSION: Several useful factors associated with exceptional care were described in the literature. The proposed framework has implications for understanding and disseminating best care practice in primary care. Further refinement of the framework is required before its widespread recommendation.

The positive deviance approach is focused on identifying people/organizations performing particularly well, in spite of having similar challenges and resources to others, and learning about how they work so well. Recently, this approach has been used in healthcare to learn about how to improve the quality and safety of care for patients. This review aims to explore how the positive deviance approach has been used in primary care settings and to summarize the findings from this research. Overall, 27 studies were included in the review. We found that studies typically focused on identifying positive deviants (i.e. those performing particularly well) and finding out what helps them do that, without looking to see if these same practices work elsewhere or teaching others about them. The positive deviance approach was used to improve several different parts of primary care including; care effectiveness, management of chronic diseases, preventative care, prescribing, and health promotion. Several success strategies were identified from the studies' findings and were organized into a framework describing what practices contribute to particularly good performance in primary care. This framework will be useful for those looking to improve quality of care in primary care.

What are the predictors of hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit? A cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Although appropriate hand hygiene (HH) practices are recognised as the most effective preventative strategy for infection, adherence is suboptimal. Previous studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have found differences in HH compliance between those moments that protect the patient, and those that protect the healthcare provider. However, such studies did not control for other variables known to impact HH compliance. AIM: To examine HH among healthcare workers (HCWs) in ICU settings, and identify whether there is a statistical difference in HH compliance between patient-protective and self-protective moments, while controlling for other variables known to influence HH compliance (i.e. professional role, unit and shift time). METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in four ICUs across three Irish hospitals. Compliance was assessed according to the WHO's 'five moments for hand hygiene'. HCW professional role, total number of 'opportunities' for HH and whether compliance was achieved were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 712 HH opportunities were recorded, with an overall compliance rate of 56.9%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that physicians, allied healthcare professionals and auxiliary staff were less likely than nurses to engage in HH. HCWs were more likely to comply during night shifts compared to morning shifts, and with self-protective as compared to patient-protective HH moments. CONCLUSION: The information provided in this study provides a data-driven approach that ICUs can use to tailor HH interventions to where, when and for whom they are most required.

Patients' perception of safety climate in Irish general practice: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although patients have the potential to provide important information on patient safety, considerably fewer patient-report measures of safety climate (SC) have been applied in the primary care setting as compared to secondary care. Our aim was to examine the application of a patient-report measure of safety climate in an Irish population to understand patient perceptions of safety in general practice and identify potential areas for improvement. Specifically, our research questions were: 1. What are patients' perceptions of SC in Irish general practice? 2. Do patient risk factors impact perceptions of SC? 3. Do patient responses to an open-ended question about safety enhance our understanding of patient safety beyond that obtained from a quantitative measure of SC? METHODS: The Patient Perspective of Safety in General Practice (PPS-GP) survey was distributed to primary care patients in Ireland. The survey consisted of both Likert-response items, and free-text entry questions in relation to the safety of care. A series of five separate hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relationship between a range of patient-related variables and each of the survey subscales. A deductive content analysis approach was used to code the free-text responses. RESULTS: A total of 584 completed online and paper surveys were received. Respondents generally had positive perceptions of safety across all five SC subscales of the PPS-GP. Regarding patient risk factors, younger age and being of non-Irish nationality were consistently associated with more negative SC perceptions. Analysis of the free-text responses revealed considerably poorer patient perceptions (n = 85, 65.4%) of the safety experience in primary care. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that despite being under-utilised, patients' perceptions are a valuable source of information for measuring SC, with promising implications for safety improvement in general practice. Further consideration should be given to how best to utilise this data in order to improve safety in primary care.

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.

Development and validation of a patient-report measure of safety climate for general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients remain an under-utilized source of information on patient safety, as reflected by the dearth of patient-report measures of safety climate, particularly for use in general practice settings. Extant measures are marked by poor coverage of safety climate domains, inadequate psychometric properties and/or lack of consideration of usability. OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel patient-report measure of safety climate specifically for completion by general practice patients, and to establish the validity, reliability and usability of this measure. METHODS: An iterative process was used to develop the safety climate measure, with patient and general practitioner input. A cross-sectional design was employed to examine the validity (content, construct and convergent), reliability (internal consistency), and usability (readability and burden) of the measure. RESULTS: A total of 584 general practice patients completed the measure. The exploratory factor analysis identified five factors pertaining to safety climate in general practice: Feeling of Safety with GP; Practice Staff Efficiency and Teamwork; Staff Stress and Workload; Patient Knowledge and Accountability, and; Safety Systems and Behaviours. These factors strongly correlated with two global safety measures, demonstrating convergent validity. The measure showed strong internal consistency, and was considered usable for patients as indicated by readability and duration of completion. CONCLUSION: Our novel measure of safety climate for use in general practice demonstrates favourable markers of validity, reliability and usability. This measure will provide a mechanism for the patient voice to be heard in patient safety measurement, and to be used to improve patient safety in general practice.

Do Gender-Based Disparities in Authorship and Editorship Exist in Healthcare Simulation Journals? A Bibliometric Review of the Research.

SUMMARY STATEMENT: Publication in peer-reviewed journals, and serving on editorial boards, is considered an indicator of academic productivity and success, and a means of influencing discourse and practice in a field. This bibliometric review explored gender in authorship, and editorship, across the 3 existing English language, nonspecialty specific healthcare simulation journals. In total, 40.4% of publications had women first authors and 34.4% had women senior authors. There were no differences by journal and no apparent changes over time. Poor participation of women on editorial boards (38.1% of editorial board members were women) was observed. The observed level of representation of women as first and senior authors, and on editorial boards, is comparable with other health sciences domains but nonetheless warrants attention and improvement. Future research examining the profile of those working within simulation or evaluating strategies to improve the participation of women within healthcare simulation research and journals would be of interest.

Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review.

CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.

Understanding hand hygiene behaviour in the intensive care unit to inform interventions: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Improving hand hygiene (HH) compliance is one of the most important, but elusive, goals of infection control. The purpose of this study was to use the capability (C), opportunity (O), motivation (M), and behaviour (B; COM-B) model and the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to gain an understanding of the barriers and enablers of HH behaviours in an intensive care unit (ICU) in order to identify specific interventions to improve HH compliance. METHODS: A semi-structured interview schedule was developed based upon the COM-B model. This schedule was used to interview a total of 26 ICU staff: 12 ICU nurses, 11 anaesthetic specialist registrars, and three anaesthetic senior house officers. RESULTS: Participants were confident in their capabilities to carry out appropriate HH behaviours. The vast majority of participants reported having the necessary knowledge and skills, and believed they were capable of carrying out appropriate HH behaviours. Social influence was regarded as being important in encouraging HH compliance by the interviewees- particularly by nurses. The participants were motivated to carry out HH behaviours, and it was recognised that HH was an important part of their job and is important in preventing infection. It is recommended that staff are provided with targeted HH training, in which individuals receive direct and individualised feedback on actual performance and are provided guidance on how to address deficiencies in HH compliance at the bedside at the time at which the HH behaviour is performed. Modelling of appropriate HH behaviours by senior leaders is also suggested, particularly by senior doctors. Finally, appropriate levels of staffing are a factor that must be considered if HH compliance is to be improved. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that short interviews with ICU staff, founded on appropriate behavioural change frameworks, can provide an understanding of HH behaviour. This understanding can then be applied to design interventions appropriately tailored to the needs of a specific unit, which will have an increased likelihood of improving HH compliance.

A systematic review of patient complaints about general practice.

BACKGROUND: Health care complaints are an underutilized resource for quality and safety improvement. Most research on health care complaints is focused on secondary care. However, there is also a need to consider patient safety in general practice, and complaints could inform quality and safety improvement. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to synthesize the extant research on complaints in general practice. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Academic Search Complete. Peer-reviewed studies describing the content, impact of and motivation for complaints were included and data extracted. Framework synthesis was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) as an organizing framework. Methodological quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: The search identified 2960 records, with 21 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was found to be variable. The contents of complaints were classified using the HCAT, with 126 complaints (54%) classified in the Clinical domain, 55 (23%) classified as Management and 54 (23%) classified as Relationships. Motivations identified for making complaints included quality improvement for other patients and monetary compensation. Complaints had both positive and negative impacts on individuals and systems involved. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted the high proportion of clinical complaints in general practice compared to secondary care, patients' motivations for making complaints and the positive and negative impacts that complaints can have on health care systems. Future research focused on the reliable coding of complaints and their use to improve quality and safety in general practice is required.

Using simulation to explore the impact of device design on the learning and performance of peripheral intravenous cannulation.

BACKGROUND: The design of medical devices impacts upon the performance of healthcare professionals and patient safety. However, multiple devices serving the same function are often available. The purpose of this study was to use simulation as a means of examining the impact of differences in device design on (1) learning of, or attainment of behavioral fluency in, peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC); and (2) the generalization, or transfer, of learning on one device to performance of PIVC using an untrained device. METHODS: A total of 25 final cycle medical students participated in this study which used a randomized two-group design. Participants were randomly assigned to learn PIVC using either a closed PIVC device (a single device which consists of an intravenous cannula with a pre-attached extension tube; n = 14) or an open PIVC device (a two-piece device made up of an intravenous cannula and a separate extension tube which is attached following insertion of the cannula; n = 11). Task analyses were developed for the performance of PIVC using each device. Subsequently, simulation-based fluency training was delivered to both groups using their assigned PIVC device, and continued for each participant until the fluency criterion was achieved. Following achievement of fluency, participants were asked to perform PIVC using the untrained device (i.e., the PIVC device that they had not been trained on). RESULTS: All participants in both groups met the fluency criterion, and no significant differences were observed in the number of trials or total training required by groups to achieve fluency. Participants in both groups improved significantly from baseline (M = 11.69) to final training trial (M = 100). However, a significant decrement in performance (M = 81.5) was observed when participants were required to perform PIVC using the untrained device. CONCLUSIONS: Participants achieved fluency in PIVC regardless of the device used. However, significant decrements in performance were observed when participants were required to perform PIVC using a novel device. This finding supports the need for careful consideration of devices purchased and supplied in the clinical setting, and the need for training prior to the introduction of novel devices or for new staff members.

Hand Hygiene Compliance in the ICU: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the literature describing compliance with World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines in ICUs, to evaluate the quality of extant research, and to examine differences in compliance levels across geographical regions, ICU types, and healthcare worker groups, observation methods, and moments (indications) of hand hygiene. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches were conducted in August 2018 using Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Reference lists of included studies and related review articles were also screened. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, peer-reviewed studies measuring hand hygiene compliance by healthcare workers in an ICU setting using direct observation guided by the World Health Organization's "Five Moments for Hand Hygiene," published since 2009, were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Information was extracted on study location, research design, type of ICU, healthcare workers, measurement procedures, and compliance levels. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-one studies were included. Most were conducted in high-income countries (60.7%) and in adult ICUs (85.2%). Mean hand hygiene compliance was 59.6%. Compliance levels appeared to differ by geographic region (high-income countries 64.5%, low-income countries 9.1%), type of ICU (neonatal 67.0%, pediatric 41.2%, adult 58.2%), and type of healthcare worker (nursing staff 43.4%, physicians 32.6%, other staff 53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Mean hand hygiene compliance appears notably lower than international targets. The data collated may offer useful indicators for those evaluating, and seeking to improve, hand hygiene compliance in ICUs internationally.

A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Educational Climate and Safety Climate During the First Year of Clinical Practice in Ireland.

PURPOSE: Educational climate (EC) and safety climate (SC) are key determinants of residents' professional development. The goal of this study was to gather longitudinal EC data and data on perceptions of SC in residency, and provide data on practices related to perceptions of EC and SC, by identifying factors associated with and changes in perceptions of EC and SC across the first year of practice, and elucidating good and poor practice relating to key elements of EC and SC. METHOD: A mixed-methods design was adopted. First, 131 first-year residents in Ireland were surveyed at the end of each of their first 3 rotations (August 2016-March 2017). The survey measured EC and SC using established measures. Next, 69 semistructured interviews were conducted with a representative sample of residents (March-May 2017). An interview schedule was developed to aid in-depth probing of EC and SC perceptions. A deductive content analysis approach was adopted. RESULTS: Perceptions of EC worsened over time. The EC and SC of surgical rotations were significantly poorer than those of medical rotations. Residents were more likely to describe team practices, rather than organizational practices, that contributed positively to their perceptions of EC and SC. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to facilitate improvement of EC and SC for residents, particularly within surgical training. Future research exploring the contribution of organizational practices to EC and SC, the impact of targeted improvement activities, and best practices for involving residents in quality and safety initiatives is recommended.

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).

A systematic review of 7 years of research on entrustable professional activities in graduate medical education, 2011-2018.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to synthesise some of the extant work on the use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for postgraduate physicians, to assess the quality of the work and provide direction for future research and practice. METHOD: Systematic searches were conducted within five electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and CINAHL) in September 2018. Reference lists, Google Scholar and Google were also searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: In total, 49 studies were included, classified as Development of EPAs (n = 37; 76% of total included), Implementation and/or assessment of EPAs (n = 10; 20%), or both (n = 2; 4%). EPAs were described for numerous specialties, including internal medicine (n = 14; 36%), paediatrics (n = 8; 21%) and psychiatry (n = 4; 10%). Of the development studies, 92% utilised more than one method to generate EPAs. The two most commonly used methods were developing initial EPAs in a working group, (n = 27; 69%) and revising through deliberation (n = 21; 54%). Development papers were of variable quality (mean QATSDD score = 20, range 6-41). Implementation and assessment studies utilised methods that included observing trainee performance (n = 6; 50%) and enrolling trainees in competency-based curricula, which included EPAs (n = 4; 33%). The methodological quality of these implementation studies varied (mean QATSDD score = 19.5, range = 6-32). CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted a need for: (i) consideration of best practice guidelines for EPA development; (ii) focus on the methodological quality of research on EPA development and of EPAs, and (iii) further work investigating the implementation of EPAs in the curriculum.

Perceived safety climate in Irish primary care settings-a comparison with Scotland and England.

BACKGROUND: Safety climate (SC) measurement is a key component of quality and safety initiatives in primary healthcare. OBJECTIVES: To (1) measure perceived SC in Irish primary care; (2) examine whether perceptions of safety varied according to respondent characteristics; and (3) compare responses from our Irish sample to data from England and Scotland. METHODS: PC-SafeQuest Survey was administered to all practice staff in Irish general practices between March and May 2016. This survey consists of 30 items across five safety domains (workload, communication, leadership, teamwork, and safety systems). Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictor variables of perceived safety. The effect size of the difference between the Irish sample's scores and published English and Scottish data were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 231 questionnaires (38.5%) were returned. Generally, positive perceptions of perceived safety were identified among Irish respondents, but workload had the lowest overall mean score (M = 4.3, SD = 1.2) of the five domains. Comparisons across the Irish, English and Scottish samples identified a medium size effect difference in workload; Scottish respondents perceived workload to have less of a negative impact on safety than Irish or English counterparts (Cohen's d = 0.602, 0.67 respectively). Analyses indicated that Irish GP principals perceived a more negative impact of workload on safety than administrative staff (ß = 0.28, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Irish SC data are largely similar to those of England and Scotland. The perceived potential for workload to negatively impact upon safety emerged within each country. In Ireland, GP principals perceive this as a greater threat than practice administrators do.