Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A comparative assessment of two tools designed to support patient safety culture in UK general practice.
Litchfield, Ian; Marsden, Kate; Doos, Lucy; Perryman, Katherine; Avery, Anthony; Greenfield, Sheila.
Afiliação
  • Litchfield I; Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. I.Litchfield@bham.ac.uk.
  • Marsden K; Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
  • Doos L; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  • Perryman K; Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • Avery A; Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
  • Greenfield S; Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
BMC Fam Pract ; 22(1): 98, 2021 05 21.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34020597
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The NHS has recognised the importance of a high quality patient safety culture in the delivery of primary health care in the rapidly evolving environment of general practice. Two tools, PC-SafeQuest and MapSaf, were developed with the intention of assessing and improving patient safety culture in this setting. Both have been made widely available through their inclusion in the Royal College of General Practitioners' Patient Safety Toolkit and our work offerss a timely exploration of the tools to inform practice staff as to how each might be usefully applied and in which circumstances. Here we present a comparative analysis of their content, and describe the perspectives of staff on their design, outputs and the feasibility of their sustained use.

METHODS:

We have used a content analysis to provide the context for the qualitative study of staff experiences of using the tools at a representative range of practices recruited from across the Midlands (UK). Data was collected through moderated focus groups using an identical topic guide.

RESULTS:

A total of nine practices used the PC-SafeQuest tool and four the MapSaf tool. A total of 159 staff completed the PC-SafeQuest tool 52 of whom took part in the subsequent focus group discussions, and 25 staff completed the MapSaf tool all of whom contributed to the focus group discussions. PC-SafeQuest was perceived as quick and easy to use with direct questions pertinent to the work of GP practices providing useful quantitative insight into important areas of safety culture. Though MaPSaF was more logistically challenging, it created a forum for synchronous cross- practice discussions raising awareness of perceptions of safety culture across the practice team.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both tools were able to promote reflective and reflexive practice either in individual staff members or across the broader practice team and the oversight they granted provided useful direction for senior staff looking to improve patient safety. Because PC SafeQuest can be easily disseminated and independently completed it is logistically suited to larger practice organisations, whereas the MapSaf tool lends itself to smaller practices where assembling staff in a single workshop is more readily achieved.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Medicina Geral / Segurança do Paciente Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: BMC Fam Pract Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Medicina Geral / Segurança do Paciente Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: BMC Fam Pract Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido