Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: review of international use and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Recently, faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have been introduced for investigation of primary care patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC), but recommendations vary across the world. This systematic review of clinical practice guidelines aimed to determine how FITs are used in symptomatic primary care patients and the underpinning evidence for these guidelines. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and TRIP databases were systematically searched, from 1 November 2008 to 1 November 2018 for guidelines on the assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of CRC. Known guideline databases, websites and references of related literature were searched. The following questions were addressed: (i) which countries use FIT for symptomatic primary care patients; (ii) in which populations is FIT used; (iii) what is the cut-off level used for haemoglobin in the faeces (FIT) and (iv) on what evidence are FIT recommendations based. RESULTS: The search yielded 2433 publications; 25 covered initial diagnostic assessment of patients with symptoms of CRC in 15 countries (Asia, n = 1; Europe, n = 13; Oceania, n = 4; North America, n = 5; and South America, n = 2). In three countries (Australia, Spain and the UK), FIT was recommended for patients with abdominal symptoms, unexplained weight loss, change in bowel habit or anaemia despite a low level of evidence in the symptomatic primary care patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Few countries recommend FITs in symptomatic patients in primary care either because of limited evidence or because symptomatic patients are directly referred to secondary care without triage. These results demonstrate a clear need for research on FIT in the symptomatic primary care population.

Variation in the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of international guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Women with ovarian cancer can present with a variety of symptoms and signs, and an increasing range of tests are available for their investigation. A number of international guidelines provide advice for the initial assessment of possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women. We systematically identified and reviewed the consistency and quality of these documents. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, guideline-specific databases and professional organisation websites were searched in March 2018 for relevant clinical guidelines, consensus statements and clinical pathways, produced by professional or governmental bodies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised documents using the Appraisal for Guidelines and Research Evaluation 2 (AGREEII) tool. RESULTS: Eighteen documents from 11 countries in six languages met selection criteria. Methodological quality varied with two guidance documents achieving an AGREEII score ≥ 50% in all six domains and 10 documents scoring ≥50% for "Rigour of development" (range: 7-96%). All guidance documents provided advice on possible symptoms of ovarian cancer, although the number of symptoms included in documents ranged from four to 14 with only one symptom (bloating/abdominal distension/increased abdominal size) appearing in all documents. Fourteen documents provided advice on physical examinations but varied in both the examinations they recommended and the physical signs they included. Fifteen documents provided recommendations on initial investigations. Transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound and the serum biomarker CA125 were the most widely advocated initial tests. Five distinct testing strategies were identified based on the number of tests and the order of testing advocated: 'single test', 'dual testing', 'sequential testing', 'multiple testing options' and 'no testing'. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations on the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women vary considerably between international guidance documents. This variation could contribute to differences in the way symptomatic women are assessed and investigated between countries. Greater research is needed to evaluate the assessment and testing approaches advocated by different guidelines and their impact on ovarian cancer detection.

In-hospital prescription changes and documentation in the medical records of the primary care provider: results from a medical record review study.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of transitions due to substitution of care of more complex patients urges insight in and improvement of transitional medication safety. While lack of documentation of prescription changes and/or lack of information exchange between settings likely cause adverse drug events, frequency of occurrence of these causes is not clear. Therefore, we aimed at determining the frequency of in-hospital patients' prescription changes that are not or incorrectly documented in their primary care provider's (PCP) medical record. METHODS: A medical record review study was performed in a database linking patients' medical records of hospital and PCP. A random sample (n = 600) was drawn from all 1399 patients who were registered at a participating primary care practice as well as the gastroenterology or cardiology department in 2013 of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Outcomes were the number of in-hospital prescription changes that was not or incorrectly documented in the medical record of the PCP, and timeliness of documentation. RESULTS: Records of 390 patients included one or more primary-secondary care transitions; in total we identified 1511 transitions. During these transitions, 408 in-hospital prescription changes were made, of which 31% was not or incorrectly documented in the medical record of the PCP within the next 3 months. In case changes were documented, the median number of days between hospital visit and documentation was 3 (IQR 0­18). CONCLUSIONS: One third of in-hospital prescription changes was not or incorrectly documented in the PCP's record, which likely puts patients at risk of adverse drug events after hospital visits. Such flawed reliability of a routine care process is unacceptable and warrants improvement and close monitoring.

Exploring patient safety culture in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore perceptions of safety culture in nine different types of primary care professions and to study possible differences. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Three hundred and thirteen practices from nine types of primary care profession groups in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Professional staff from primary care practices. Nine professions participated: dental care, dietetics, exercise therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, midwifery, anticoagulation clinics, skin therapy and speech therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptions of seven patient safety culture dimensions were measured: 'open communication and learning from error', 'handover and teamwork', 'adequate procedures and working conditions', 'patient safety management', 'support and fellowship', 'intention to report events' and 'organizational learning'. Dimension means per profession were presented, and multilevel analyses were used to assess differences between professions. Also the so-called patient safety grade was self-reported. RESULTS: Five hundred and nineteen practices responded (response rate: 24%) of which 313 (625 individual questionnaires) were included for analysis. Overall, patient safety culture was perceived as being positive. Occupational therapy and anticoagulation therapy deviated most from other professions in a negative way, whereas physiotherapy deviated the most in a positive way. In addition, most professions graded their patient safety as positive (mean = 4.03 on a five-point scale). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patient safety culture in Dutch primary care professions on average is perceived positively. Also, it revealed variety between professions, indicating that a customized approach per profession group might contribute to successful implementation of safety strategies.

Quality of primary care for resettled refugees in the Netherlands with chronic mental and physical health problems: a cross-sectional analysis of medical records and interview data.

BACKGROUND: A high prevalence of mental and physical ill health among refugees resettled in the Netherlands has been reported. With this study we aim to assess the quality of primary healthcare for resettled refugees in the Netherlands with chronic mental and non-communicable health problems, we examined: a) general practitioners' (GP) recognition of common mental disorders (CMD) (depression and anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms); b) patients' awareness of diabetes type II (DMII) and hypertension (HT); and c) GPs' adherence to guidelines for CMD, DMII and HT. METHODS: From 172 refugees resettled in the Netherlands, interview data (2010-2011) and medical records (n = 106), were examined. Inclusion was based on medical record diagnoses for DMII and HT, and on questionnaire-based CMD measures (Hopkins Symptom Checklist for depression and anxiety; Harvard Trauma Questionnaire for PTSD). GP recognition of CMD was calculated as the number of CMD cases registered in the medical record compared with those found in interviews. Patient awareness of HT and DMII was scored as the percentage of subjects diagnosed by the GP who reported their condition during the interview. GPs' adherence to guidelines for CMD, DMII and HT was measured using established indicators. RESULTS: We identified 37 resettled refugees with CMD of which 18 (49%) had been recognised by the GP. We identified 16 refugees with DMII and 14 with HT from the medical record; 24 (80%) were aware of their condition. Thirty-five out of these 53 (66%) resettled refugees with chronic mental and non-communicable disorders received guideline-adherent treatment. CONCLUSION: This study shows that awareness in resettled refugees of GP diagnosed DMII and HT is high, whereas GP recognition of CMD and overall guideline adherence are moderate.

Leveraging Administrative Data to Better Understand and Address Child Maltreatment: A Scoping Review of Data Linkage Studies.

BACKGROUND: This scoping review aimed to overview studies that used administrative data linkage in the context of child maltreatment to improve our understanding of the value that data linkage may confer for policy, practice, and research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ERIC electronic databases in June 2019 and May 2020 for studies that linked two or more datasets (at least one of which was administrative in nature) to study child maltreatment. We report findings with numerical and narrative summary. RESULTS: We included 121 studies, mainly from the United States or Australia and published in the past decade. Data came primarily from social services and health sectors, and linkage processes and data quality were often not described in sufficient detail to align with current reporting guidelines. Most studies were descriptive in nature and research questions addressed fell under eight themes: descriptive epidemiology, risk factors, outcomes, intergenerational transmission, predictive modelling, intervention/service evaluation, multi-sector involvement, and methodological considerations/advancements. CONCLUSIONS: Included studies demonstrated the wide variety of ways in which data linkage can contribute to the public health response to child maltreatment. However, how research using linked data can be translated into effective service development and monitoring, or targeting of interventions, is underexplored in terms of privacy protection, ethics and governance, data quality, and evidence of effectiveness.

Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in the US (2011-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program.

Background: In this study, we compare management of patients with high-risk chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States to national and international guidelines and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). Methods: Patients were identified from the DARTNet Practice Performance Registry and categorized into three high-risk cohorts in each year from 2011 to 2019: newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and patients with potential undiagnosed COPD. Patients were considered high-risk if they had a history of exacerbations or likely exacerbations (respiratory consult with prescribed medication). Descriptive statistics for 2019 are reported, along with annual trends. Findings: In 2019, 10% (n = 16,610/167,197) of patients met high-risk criteria. Evidence of spirometry for diagnosis was low; in 2019, 81% (n = 1228/1523) of patients newly diagnosed at high-risk had no record of spirometry/peak expiratory flow in the 12 months pre- or post-diagnosis and 43% (n = 651/1523) had no record of COPD symptom review. Among those newly and already diagnosed at high-risk, 52% (n = 4830/9350) had no evidence of COPD medication. Interpretation: Findings suggest inconsistent adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and opportunities to improve identification, documentation of services, assessment, therapeutic intervention, and follow-up of patients with COPD. Funding: This study was conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and was partially funded by Optimum Patient Care Global and AstraZeneca Ltd. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.

Identification of key opportunities for optimising the management of high-risk COPD patients in the UK using the CONQUEST quality standards: an observational longitudinal study.

Background: This study compared management of high-risk COPD patients in the UK to national and international management recommendations and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). The primary comparison was in 2019, but trends from 2000 to 2019 were also examined. Methods: Patients identified in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database were categorised as newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and potential COPD (smokers having exacerbation-like events). High-risk patients had a history of ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbations in the previous 12 months. Findings: For diagnosed patients, the median time between diagnosis and first meeting the high-risk criteria was 617 days (Q1-Q3: 3246). The use of spirometry for diagnosis increased dramatically after 2004 before plateauing and falling in recent years. In 2019, 41% (95% CI 39-44%; n = 550/1343) of newly diagnosed patients had no record of spirometry in the previous year, and 45% (95% CI 43-48%; n = 352/783) had no record of a COPD medication review within 6 months of treatment initiation or change. In 2019, 39% (n = 6893/17,858) of already diagnosed patients had no consideration of exacerbation rates, 46% (95% CI 45-47%; n = 4942/10,725) were not offered or referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, and 41% (95% CI 40-42%; n = 3026/7361) had not had a COPD review within 6 weeks of respiratory hospitalization. Interpretation: Opportunities for early diagnosis of COPD patients at high risk of exacerbations are being missed. Newly and already diagnosed patients at high-risk are not being assessed or treated promptly. There is substantial scope to improve the assessment and treatment optimisation of these patients. Funding: This study is conducted by the Observational & Pragmatic Research International Ltd and was co-funded by Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.

Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Primary care professionals can play an important role in both prevention and early detection of CRC. Most CRCs are attributed to modifiable lifestyle factors, which can be addressed within primary care, and promotion of population-based screening programmes can aid early cancer detection in asymptomatic patients. Primary care professionals have a vital role in clinically assessing patients presenting with symptoms that may indicate cancer, as most patients with CRC first present with symptoms. These assessments are often challenging-many of the symptoms of CRC are non-specific and commonly occur in patients presenting with non-malignant disease. The range of options for investigating symptomatic patients in primary care is rapidly growing. Simple tests, such as faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), are now being used to guide decisions around referral for more invasive tests, such as colonoscopy, while direct access to specialist investigations is also becoming more common. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) which calculate cancer risk based on symptomatology, patient characteristics and test results can provide an additional resource to guide decisions on further investigation. This article explores the challenges of CRC prevention and detection from the primary care perspective, discusses current evidence-based approaches for CRC detection used in primary care (with examples from UK guidelines), and highlights emerging research which may likely alter practice in the future.

Risk Predictors and Symptom Features of Long COVID Within a Broad Primary Care Patient Population Including Both Tested and Untested Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms may persist after the initial phases of COVID-19 infection, a phenomenon termed long COVID. Current knowledge on long COVID has been mostly derived from test-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Data are required on the burden and predictors of long COVID in a broader patient group, which includes both tested and untested COVID-19 patients in primary care. METHODS: This is an observational study using data from Platform C19, a quality improvement program-derived research database linking primary care electronic health record data (EHR) with patient-reported questionnaire information. Participating general practices invited consenting patients aged 18-85 to complete an online questionnaire since 7th August 2020. COVID-19 self-diagnosis, clinician-diagnosis, testing, and the presence and duration of symptoms were assessed via the questionnaire. Patients were considered present with long COVID if they reported symptoms lasting ≥4 weeks. EHR and questionnaire data up till 22nd January 2021 were extracted for analysis. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted comparing demographics, clinical characteristics, and presence of symptoms between patients with long COVID and patients with shorter symptom duration. RESULTS: Long COVID was present in 310/3151 (9.8%) patients with self-diagnosed, clinician-diagnosed, or test-confirmed COVID-19. Only 106/310 (34.2%) long COVID patients had test-confirmed COVID-19. Risk predictors of long COVID were age ≥40 years (adjusted Odds Ratio [AdjOR]=1.49 [1.05-2.17]), female sex (adjOR=1.37 [1.02-1.85]), frailty (adjOR=2.39 [1.29-4.27]), visit to A&E (adjOR=4.28 [2.31-7.78]), and hospital admission for COVID-19 symptoms (adjOR=3.22 [1.77-5.79]). Aches and pain (adjOR=1.70 [1.21-2.39]), appetite loss (adjOR=3.15 [1.78-5.92]), confusion and disorientation (adjOR=2.17 [1.57-2.99]), diarrhea (adjOR=1.4 [1.03-1.89]), and persistent dry cough (adjOR=2.77 [1.94-3.98]) were symptom features statistically more common in long COVID. CONCLUSION: This study reports the factors and symptom features predicting long COVID in a broad primary care population, including both test-confirmed and the previously missed group of COVID-19 patients.

Quality of the diagnostic process in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of bladder or kidney cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: In urological cancers, sex disparity exists for survival, with women doing worse than men. Suboptimal evaluation of presenting symptoms may contribute. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review examining factors affecting the quality of the diagnostic process of patients presenting with symptoms of bladder or kidney cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2000 to 13 June 2019. ELIGIBLE CRITERIA: We focused on one of the six domains of quality of healthcare: timeliness, and examined the quality of the diagnostic process more broadly, by assessing whether guideline-concordant history, examination, tests and referrals were performed. Studies describing the factors that affect the timeliness or quality of the assessment of urinary tract infections, haematuria and lower urinary tract symptoms in the context of bladder or kidney cancer, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two authors. Due to the heterogeneity of study design and outcomes, the results could not be pooled. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: 28 studies met review criteria, representing 583 636 people from 9 high-income countries. Studies were based in primary care (n=8), specialty care (n=12), or both (n=8). Up to two-thirds of patients with haematuria received no further evaluation in the 6 months after their initial visit. Urinary tract infections, nephrolithiasis and benign prostatic conditions before cancer diagnosis were associated with diagnostic delay. Women were more likely to experience diagnostic delay than men. Patients who first saw a urologist were less likely to experience delayed evaluation and cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Women, and patients with non-cancerous urological diagnoses just prior to their cancer diagnosis, were more likely to experience lower quality diagnostic processes. Risk prediction tools, and improving guideline ambiguity, may improve outcomes and reduce sex disparity in survival for these cancers.

The transitional risk and incident questionnaire was valid and reliable for measuring transitional patient safety from the patients' perspective.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development and validation of the Transitional Risk and Incident Questionnaire (TRIQ), which measures transitional patient safety from the patients' perspective. METHODS: The TRIQ was developed based on literature review, tested in the target group using a think-aloud procedure, and validated by a cross-sectional study among patients receiving health care at the interface between general practice and hospital care in two regions in the Netherlands. Exploratory factor analysis was performed, and internal consistency was assessed. The relationships between the occurrence of transitional safety incidents (TSIs) as measured by the TRIQ and relational continuity and those between TSI occurrence and overall rating of transitions were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 451 questionnaires were completed for analysis. The exploratory factor analysis provided a four-factor solution: (1) personal relation with general practitioner, (2) personal relation with hospital physician, (3) information exchange, and (4) treatment consistency. Internal consistency was good (composite reliability, 0.75-0.95). An experienced TSI was related to a poorer relational continuity both with the general practitioner and hospital and with a lower overall rating of all transitions. CONCLUSIONS: The TRIQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire measuring transitional patient safety from the patients' perspective.

Transitional safety incidents as reported by patients and healthcare professionals in the Netherlands: A descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Care transitions between general practice and hospital are hazardous regarding patient safety. For developing an improvement strategy adjusted to local settings, understanding of type and potential causes of transitional safety incidents (TSIs) is needed. OBJECTIVES: To provide a broad overview of the nature of TSIs reported by patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We collected data (2011-2015) from three hospitals and 56 affiliated general practitioners (GPs) in two Dutch regions (one urban, one rural). We collected data from patients through a survey, interviews and incident reporting weeks, and from GPs and hospital specialists through incident reporting systems, surveys, interviews and focus group discussions. We classified reported TSIs according to type, cause and severity. RESULTS: In total, 548 TSIs were reported by 411 patients and 137 healthcare professionals; 368 of 548 TSI reports contained sufficient information for classification into aspects of the care transition process, 191 of 548 for cause, and 149 of 548 for severity. Most TSIs concerned handover correspondence from hospital to GP (26%), referral (14%) and communication/collaboration (14%). Concerning cause, reported TSIs could be attributed to organizational (48%) and human factors (43%). Twenty-four percent concerned unsafe situations, 45% near misses and 31% adverse events. Patients and healthcare professionals reported differently on referral (17% vs 9%), repeated diagnostic testing (20% vs 1%), and uncertainty about assigned responsible physician (10% vs 3%). CONCLUSION: Reported TSIs typically concerned informational discontinuity. One third caused harm to the patient. Patients report different TSIs than healthcare professionals, suggesting a different view.

Validation of a questionnaire measuring transitional patient safety climate indicated differences in transitional patient safety climate between primary and secondary care.

OBJECTIVES: This study describes the development and validation of the TRAnsitional patient safety Climate Evaluation (TRACE) questionnaire, measuring transitional patient safety climate from the perspective of general practitioners and hospital physicians. Patient safety climate reflects the professionals' perception of the organizational patient safety culture. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the development of the TRACE, we adjusted existing questionnaires on patient safety culture. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. Internal consistency and correlations between factors and a global transitional patient safety rating were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 162 questionnaires were completed (response 23%; general practice: N = 97, hospital physicians: N = 65). Analysis of all respondents did not provide an interpretable factor solution. However, the EFA on the results of hospital physicians revealed four relevant factors: (1) collaboration, (2) speaking up, (3) communication on transitional incidents and improvement measures, and (4) transitional patient safety management. The internal consistency of these factors was good for hospital respondents (0.71-0.87) and fair to acceptable for general practices' respondents (0.63-0.72). CONCLUSION: Although the TRACE questionnaire did not provide a solid factor structure in a combined sample of general practice and hospital respondents, the factors found reliable in hospital setting had acceptable reliability in general practice setting.

Measurement tools and outcome measures used in transitional patient safety; a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients are at risk for harm when treated simultaneously by healthcare providers from different healthcare organisations. To assess current practice and improvements of transitional patient safety, valid measurement tools are needed. AIM AND METHODS: To identify and appraise all measurement tools and outcomes that measure aspects of transitional patient safety, PubMed, Cinahl, Embase and Psychinfo were systematically searched. Two researchers performed the title and abstract and full-text selection. First, publications about validation of measurement tools were appraised for quality following COSMIN criteria. Second, we inventoried all measurement tools and outcome measures found in our search that assessed current transitional patient safety or the effect of interventions targeting transitional patient safety. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 8288 studies, of which 18 assessed validity of measurement tools of different aspects of transitional safety, and 191 assessed current transitional patient safety or effect of interventions. In the validated measurement tools, the overall quality of content and structural validity was acceptable; other COSMIN criteria, such as reliability, measurement error and responsiveness, were mostly poor or not reported. In our outcome inventory, the most frequently used validated outcome measure was the Care Transition Measure (n = 9). The most frequently used non-validated outcome measures were: medication discrepancies (n = 98), hospital readmissions (n = 55), adverse events (n = 34), emergency department visits (n = 33), (mental or physical) health status (n = 28), quality and timeliness of discharge summary, and patient satisfaction (n = 23). CONCLUSIONS: Although no validated measures exist that assess all aspects of transitional patient safety, we found validated measurement tools on specific aspects. Reporting of validity of transitional measurement tools was incomplete. Numerous outcome measures with unknown measurement properties are used in current studies on safety of care transitions, which makes interpretation or comparison of their results uncertain.

Validity and reliability of a medical record review method identifying transitional patient safety incidents in merged primary and secondary care patients' records.

OBJECTIVE: Inadequate information transfer during transitions in healthcare is a major patient safety issue. Aim of this study was to pilot a review of medical records to identify transitional safety incidents (TSIs) for use in a large intervention study and assess its reliability and validity. DESIGN: A retrospective medical record review study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Combined primary and secondary care medical records of 301 patients who had visited their general practitioner and the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 2013 were randomly selected. Six trained reviewers assessed these medical records for presence of TSIs. OUTCOMES: To assess inter-rater reliability, 10% of medical records were independently reviewed twice. To assess validity, the identified TSIs were compared with a reference standard of three objectively identifiable TSIs. RESULTS: The reviewers identified TSIs in 52 (17.3%) of all transitional medical records. Variation between reviewers was high (range: 3-28 per 50 medical records). Positive agreement for finding a TSI between reviewers was 0%, negative agreement 80% and the Cohen's kappa -0.15. The reviewers identified 43 (22%) of 194 objectively identifiable TSIs. CONCLUSION: The reliability of our measurement tool for identifying TSIs in transitional medical record performed by clinicians was low. Although the TSIs that were identified by clinicians were valid, they missed 80% of them. Restructuring the record review procedure is necessary.

Pilot study on identification of incidents in healthcare transitions and concordance between medical records and patient interview data.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether transitional incidents can be identified from the medical records of the general practitioners and the hospital and to assess the concordance of transitional incidents between medical records and patient interviews. DESIGN: A pilot study. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 regions in the Netherlands: a rural and an urban region. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of patients who experienced a transitional incident or are at high risk of experiencing transitional incidents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transitional incidents were identified from both the interviews with patients and medical records and concordance was assessed. We also classified the transitional incidents according to type, severity, estimated cause and preventability. RESULTS: We identified 28 transitional incidents within 78 transitions of which 3 could not be found in the medical records and another 5 could have been missed without the patient as information source. To summarise, 8 (29%) incidents could have been missed using solely medical records, and 7 (25%) using the patients' information exclusively. Concordance in transitional incidents between patient interviews and medical records was 64% (18/28). The majority of the transitional incidents were unsafe situations; however, 43% (12/28) of the incidents reached the patient and 18% (5/28) caused temporary patient harm. Over half of the incidents were potentially preventable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that the majority of transitional incidents can be identified from medical records of the general practitioner and hospital. With this information, we aim to develop a measurement tool for transitional incidents in the medical record of general practitioner and hospital.