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.

Mapping Processes in the Emergency Department Using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method.

Emergency departments (EDs) are dynamic, complex, and demanding environments. Introducing changes that lead to improvements in EDs can be challenging owing to the high staff turnover and mix, high patient volume with different needs, and being the front door to the hospital for the sickest patients. Quality improvement is a methodology applied routinely in EDs to instigate change to improve several outcomes such as waiting times, time to definitive treatment, and patient safety. Introducing the changes needed to transform the system in this way is seldom straightforward with the risk of "not seeing the forest for the trees" when attempting to change the system. In this article, we demonstrate how the functional resonance analysis method can be used to capture the experiences and perceptions of frontline staff to identify the key functions in the system (the trees), to understand the interactions and dependencies between them to make up the ED ecosystem ("the forest") and to support quality improvement planning, identifying priorities and patient safety risks.

Frontiers in human factors: embedding specialists in multi-disciplinary efforts to improve healthcare.

Despite the application of a huge range of human factors (HF) principles in a growing range of care contexts, there is much more that could be done to realize this expertise for patient benefit, staff well-being and organizational performance. Healthcare has struggled to embrace system safety approaches, misapplied or misinterpreted others, and has stuck to a range of outdated and potentially counter-productive myths even has safety science has developed. One consequence of these persistent misunderstandings is that few opportunities exist in clinical settings for qualified HF professionals. Instead, HF has been applied by clinicians and others, to highly variable degrees-sometimes great success, but frequently in limited and sometimes counter-productive ways. Meanwhile, HF professionals have struggled to make a meaningful impact on frontline care and have had little career structure or support. However, in the last few years, embedded clinical HF practitioners have begun to have considerable success that are now being supported and amplified by professional networks. The recent coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) experiences confirm this. Closer collaboration between healthcare and HF professionals will result in significant and ultimately beneficial changes to both professions and clinical care.

Is the 'never event' concept a useful safety management strategy in complex primary healthcare systems?

WHY IS THE AREA IMPORTANT?: A sub-group of rare but serious patient safety incidents, known as 'never events,' is judged to be 'avoidable.' There is growing interest in this concept in international care settings, including UK primary care. However, issues have been raised regarding the well-intentioned coupling of 'preventable harm' with zero tolerance 'never events,' especially around the lack of evidence for such harm ever being totally preventable. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE?: We consider whether the ideal of reducing preventable harm to 'never' is better for patient safety than, for example, the goal of managing risk materializing into harm to 'as low as reasonably practicable,' which is well-established in other complex socio-technical systems and is demonstrably achievable.We reflect on the 'never event' concept in the primary care context specifically, although the issues and the polarized opinion highlighted are widely applicable. Recent developments to validate primary care 'never event' lists are summarized and alternative safety management strategies considered, e.g. Safety-I and Safety-II. FUTURE AREAS FOR ADVANCING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: Despite their rarity, if there is to be a policy focus on 'never events,' then specialist training for key workforce members is necessary to enable examination of the complex system interactions and design issues, which contribute to such events. The 'never event' term is well intentioned but largely aspirational-however, it is important to question prevailing assumptions about how patient safety can be understood and improved by offering alternative ways of thinking about related complexities.

Will the COVID-19 pandemic transform infection prevention and control in surgery? Seeking leverage points for organizational learning.

BACKGROUND: In response to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare systems worldwide have stepped up their infection prevention and control efforts in order to reduce the spread of the infection. Behaviours, such as hand hygiene, screening and cohorting of patients, and the appropriate use of antibiotics have long been recommended in surgery, but their implementation has often been patchy. METHODS: The current crisis presents an opportunity to learn about how to improve infection prevention and control and surveillance (IPCS) behaviours. The improvements made were mainly informal, quick and stemming from the frontline rather than originating from formal organizational structures. The adaptations made and the expertise acquired have the potential for triggering deeper learning and to create enduring improvements in the routine identification and management of infections relating to surgery. RESULTS: This paper aims to illustrate how adopting a human factors and ergonomics perspective can provide insights into how clinical work systems have been adapted and reconfigured in order to keep patients and staff safe. CONCLUSION: For achieving sustainable change in IPCS practices in surgery during COVID-19 and beyond we need to enhance organizational learning potentials.

Human factors/ergonomics to support the design and testing of rapidly manufactured ventilators in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes a rapid response project from the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors (CIEHF) to support the design, development, usability testing and operation of new ventilators as part of the UK response during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A five-step approach was taken to (1) assess the COVID-19 situation and decide to formulate a response; (2) mobilise and coordinate Human Factors/Ergonomics (HFE) specialists; (3) ideate, with HFE specialists collaborating to identify, analyse the issues and opportunities, and develop strategies, plans and processes; (4) generate outputs and solutions; and (5) respond to the COVID-19 situation via targeted support and guidance. RESULTS: The response for the rapidly manufactured ventilator systems (RMVS) has been used to influence both strategy and practice to address concerns about changing safety standards and the detailed design procedure with RMVS manufacturers. CONCLUSION: The documents are part of a wider collection of HFE advice which is available on the CIEHF COVID-19 website (https://covid19.ergonomics.org.uk/).

Preliminary codesign and testing of a feedback tool to improve the quality of peer appraiser documentation for medical revalidation.

Medical appraisal and associated revalidation are mandatory for doctors in the United Kingdom. However, the quality of appraisal documentation, which informs the revalidation process on a doctor's fitness-to-practise, is known to be variable. This preliminary study aimed to develop and test a formative educational tool that could be used, as part of routine appraiser training in the general practice setting, to review and provide evidence and feedback on the quality of documentation completion. A mixed-methods study was undertaken based on codesign principles, which elicited the views and opinions of medical appraisers, appraisal leads and medical managers on the content of an educational tool designed to reduce variation in appraisal paperwork completion. The study team created a 24-item educational tool covering six domains of the appraisal process. Domains included 'reflection on practice', 'knowledge, skills and performance' and 'quality and safety'. The tool was piloted amongst appraisers and received positive feedback. This study contributes practical knowledge to help reduce variation in appraisal documentation. The tool can be used to streamline the completion of appraisal documentation by appraisers. It may provide a level of quality assurance and contribute to providing fair, objective and measurable grounds for revalidation.

Participatory design of an improvement intervention for the primary care management of possible sepsis using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring effective identification and management of sepsis is a healthcare priority in many countries. Recommendations for sepsis management in primary care have been produced, but in complex healthcare systems, an in-depth understanding of current system interactions and functioning is often essential before improvement interventions can be successfully designed and implemented. A structured participatory design approach to model a primary care system was employed to hypothesise gaps between work as intended and work delivered to inform improvement and implementation priorities for sepsis management. METHODS: In a Scottish regional health authority, multiple stakeholders were interviewed and the records of patients admitted from primary care to hospital with possible sepsis analysed. This identified the key work functions required to manage these patients successfully, the influence of system conditions (such as resource availability) and the resulting variability of function output. This information was used to model the system using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM). The multiple stakeholder interviews also explored perspectives on system improvement needs which were subsequently themed. The FRAM model directed an expert group to reconcile improvement suggestions with current work systems and design an intervention to improve clinical management of sepsis. RESULTS: Fourteen key system functions were identified, and a FRAM model was created. Variability was found in the output of all functions. The overall system purpose and improvement priorities were agreed. Improvement interventions were reconciled with the FRAM model of current work to understand how best to implement change, and a multi-component improvement intervention was designed. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional improvement approaches often focus on individual performance or a specific care process, rather than seeking to understand and improve overall performance in a complex system. The construction of the FRAM model facilitated an understanding of the complexity of interactions within the current system, how system conditions influence everyday sepsis management and how proposed interventions would work within the context of the current system. This directed the design of a multi-component improvement intervention that organisations could locally adapt and implement with the aim of improving overall system functioning and performance to improve sepsis management.

Assessing safety climate in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of the adequacy of the psychometric properties of survey measurement tools.

BACKGROUND: The perceived importance of safety culture in improving patient safety and its impact on patient outcomes has led to a growing interest in the assessment of safety climate in healthcare organizations; however, the rigour with which safety climate tools were developed and psychometrically tested was shown to be variable. This paper aims to identify and review questionnaire studies designed to measure safety climate in acute hospital settings, in order to assess the adequacy of reported psychometric properties of identified tools. METHODS: A systematic review of published empirical literature was undertaken to examine sample characteristics and instrument details including safety climate dimensions, origin and theoretical basis, and extent of psychometric evaluation (content validity, criterion validity, construct validity and internal reliability). RESULTS: Five questionnaire tools, designed for general evaluation of safety climate in acute hospital settings, were included. Detailed inspection revealed ambiguity around concepts of safety culture and climate, safety climate dimensions and the methodological rigour associated with the design of these measures. Standard reporting of the psychometric properties of developed questionnaires was variable, although evidence of an improving trend in the quality of the reported psychometric properties of studies was noted. Evidence of the theoretical underpinnings of climate tools was limited, while a lack of clarity in the relationship between safety culture and patient outcome measures still exists. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the adequacy of the psychometric development of safety climate questionnaire tools is still limited. Research is necessary to resolve the controversies in the definitions and dimensions of safety culture and climate in healthcare and identify related inconsistencies. More importance should be given to the appropriate validation of safety climate questionnaires before extending their usage in healthcare contexts different from those in which they were originally developed. Mixed methods research to understand why psychometric assessment and measurement reporting practices can be inadequate and lacking in a theoretical basis is also necessary.

'The big buzz': a qualitative study of how safe care is perceived, understood and improved in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Exploring frontline staff perceptions of patient safety is important, because they largely determine how improvement interventions are understood and implemented. However, research evidence in this area is very limited. This study therefore: explores participants' understanding of patient safety as a concept; describes the factors thought to contribute to patient safety incidents (PSIs); and identifies existing improvement actions and potential opportunities for future interventions to help mitigate risks. METHODS: A total of 34 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 general practitioners, 12 practice nurses and 11 practice managers in the West of Scotland. The data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Patient safety was considered an important and integral part of routine practice. Participants perceived a proportion of PSIs as being inevitable and therefore not preventable. However, there was consensus that most factors contributing to PSIs are amenable to improvement efforts and acknolwedgement that the potential exists for further enhancements in care procedures and systems. Most were aware of, or already using, a wide range of safety improvement tools for this purpose. While the vast majority was able to identify specific, safety-critical areas requiring further action, this was counter-balanced by the reality that additional resources were a decisive requirment. CONCLUSION: The perceptions of participants in this study are comparable with the international patient safety literature: frontline staff and clinicians are aware of and potentially able to address a wide range of safety threats. However, they require additional resources and support to do so.

Twelve tips for embedding human factors and ergonomics principles in healthcare education.

Safety and improvement efforts in healthcare education and practice are often limited by inadequate attention to human factors/ergonomics (HFE) principles and methods. Integration of HFE theory and approaches within undergraduate curricula, postgraduate training and healthcare improvement programs will enhance both the performance of care systems (productivity, safety, efficiency, quality) and the well-being (experiences, joy, satisfaction, health and safety) of all the people (patients, staff, visitors) interacting with these systems. Patient safety and quality improvement education/training are embedded to some extent in most curricula, providing a potential conduit to integrate HFE concepts. To support evolving curricula and professional development at all levels - and also challenge prevailing "human factors myths and misunderstandings" - we offer professional guidance as "tips" for educators on fundamental HFE systems and design approaches. The goal is to further enhance the effectiveness of safety and improvement work in frontline healthcare practice.

More holes than cheese. What prevents the delivery of effective, high quality and safe health care in England?

What prevents the delivery of effective, high quality and safe health care in the National Health Service (NHS) in England? This paper presents 760 challenges which 330 NHS staff reported as preventing the delivery of effective, high quality and safe care. Some problems have been known for over 25 years (staff shortages, finance and patient complexity) but other challenges raise questions about the commitment of the NHS to patient and staff safety. For example, Organisational Culture leading to 'stifling bureaucracy', 'odds stacked against smooth […] working' and Workload resulting in 'firefighting daily' and 'perpetual crisis mode'. The role of Human Factors/Ergonomics professional input (engagement with safety scientists) is discussed in the context of success stories and examples of Human Factors Integration from other safety critical industries (Defence, Nuclear and Rail). Practitioner Summary: 760 challenges to the quality, effectiveness and safety of health care were identified at Human Factors/Ergonomics taster workshops in England. These are used to challenge health care providers to think about a Human Factors Integration (HFI systems) approach for safety, well-being and performance for all people involved in providing and receiving health care.

An enhanced induction programme for general practice specialty training: a qualitative study of trainee perceptions and experience.

BACKGROUND: Following a Judicial review brought by the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, greater expectation is now being placed upon Health Education England Local Offices and Deaneries across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to identify doctors who may go on to experience difficulties in general practice specialty training - and who may benefit from educational support at an early stage. NHS Education for Scotland West region has offered an enhanced induction programme for trainees who were identified as being at risk of difficulty in training. AIMS: To capture the experience of an enhanced induction programme; exploring insight towards potential difficulties in training; and the feelings relating to being identified as a trainee at risk of difficulty. METHOD: Interviews with trainees who attended the enhanced induction programme. Transcripts were analysed by a basic thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: All non-UK Doctors completed 17 interviews. The term 'at risk' was accepted and the intervention was well received. Participants showed insight into the common areas of difficulty in trainees. The workshops helped to develop understanding of cultural differences, use of the ePortfolio, and gave participants an opportunity to practice their communication skills. CONCLUSIONS: This enhanced induction programme has provided targeted training to a group of trainees identified at risk of difficulty.

Utilisation of internet resources for continuing professional development: a cross-sectional survey of general practitioners in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Participation in continuing professional development (CPD) is a professional and regulatory expectation of general practitioners (GPs). Traditionally, CPD activity was undertaken face-to-face in educational settings, but internet based formats have found increasing favour. The need for doctors to use the internet for service and educational purposes is growing, particularly in support of specialty training and appraisal. We aimed to determine how GPs in Scotland utilise online resources in support of their CPD. This involved identifying which resources are used and how frequently, along with their preferences as to how and why they access these resources. METHODS: A cross sectional study was undertaken using an online questionnaire to survey general practitioners across Scotland. Data were subjected to descriptive analysis and differences in attitudinal responses between groups and Fischer's exact tests were calculated. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-three GP responses were received, with the majority being female (n = 232, 60.6%) and GP partners (n = 236, 61.6%). The majority used the internet on three or more working days per week or more frequently (n = 361, 94.3%) with the three most common reasons being to obtain information for a patient (n = 358, 93.5%), answering a clinical question (n = 357, 93.2%) and CPD purposes (n = 308, 80.4%). Of 37 online resources used by respondents, the top five were SIGN Guidelines (n = 303, 79.3%), BMJ Learning (n = 279, 73.0%), NICE Guidelines (n = 255, 66.8%), GP Notebook (n = 243, 63.6%) and Google (n = 234, 61.3%). Low use of social media such as Facebook (n = 11, 2.9%) and Twitter (n = 11, 2.9%) was reported for CPD. A majority agreed that 'reading information online' (95.0%) and 'completing online learning modules' (87.4%) were the most valued online activities. Slow internet connections (n = 240, 62.7%), website access restrictions (n = 177, 46.2%) and difficulties logging into online CPD resources (n = 163, 42.6%) were reported barriers. Significant response differences (P < 0.05) were found between groups based on high volume online usage, gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents had positive attitudes to using online resources for continuing professional development, and a preference for evidence-based and peer reviewed online resources. Information technology (IT) difficulties remain a barrier to effective utilisation. The findings have implications for future planning and design of online resources and IT infrastructure.

Understanding and responding when things go wrong: key principles for primary care educators.

Learning from events with unwanted outcomes is an important part of workplace based education and providing evidence for medical appraisal and revalidation. It has been suggested that adopting a 'systems approach' could enhance learning and effective change. We believe the following key principles should be understood by all healthcare staff, especially those with a role in developing and delivering educational content for safety and improvement in primary care. When things go wrong, professional accountability involves accepting there has been a problem, apologising if necessary and committing to learn and change. This is easier in a 'Just Culture' where wilful disregard of safe practice is not tolerated but where decisions commensurate with training and experience do not result in blame and punishment. People usually attempt to achieve successful outcomes, but when things go wrong the contribution of hindsight and attribution bias as well as a lack of understanding of conditions and available information (local rationality) can lead to inappropriately blame 'human error'. System complexity makes reduction into component parts difficult; thus attempting to 'find-and-fix' malfunctioning components may not always be a valid approach. Finally, performance variability by staff is often needed to meet demands or cope with resource constraints. We believe understanding these core principles is a necessary precursor to adopting a 'systems approach' that can increase learning and reduce the damaging effects on morale when 'human error' is blamed. This may result in 'human error' becoming the starting point of an investigation and not the endpoint.

Human factors in general practice - early thoughts on the educational focus for specialty training and beyond.

In the third article in the series, we describe the outputs from a series of roundtable discussions by Human Factors experts and General Practice (GP) Educational Supervisors tasked with examining the GP (family medicine) training and work environments through the lens of the systems and designed-centred discipline of Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE). A prominent issue agreed upon proposes that the GP setting should be viewed as a complex sociotechnical system from a care service and specialty training perspective. Additionally, while the existing GP specialty training curriculum in the United Kingdom (UK) touches on some important HFE concepts, we argue that there are also significant educational gaps that could be addressed (e.g. physical workplace design, work organisation, the design of procedures, decision-making and human reliability) to increase knowledge and skills that are key to understanding workplace complexity and interactions, and supporting everyday efforts to improve the performance and wellbeing of people and organisations. Altogether we propose and illustrate how future HFE content could be enhanced, contexualised and integrated within existing training arrangements, which also serves as a tentative guide in this area for continuing professional development for the wider GP and primary care teams.

Understanding patient safety performance and educational needs using the 'Safety-II' approach for complex systems.

Participation in projects to improve patient safety is a key component of general practice (GP) specialty training, appraisal and revalidation. Patient safety training priorities for GPs at all career stages are described in the Royal College of General Practitioners' curriculum. Current methods that are taught and employed to improve safety often use a 'find-and-fix' approach to identify components of a system (including humans) where performance could be improved. However, the complex interactions and inter-dependence between components in healthcare systems mean that cause and effect are not always linked in a predictable manner. The Safety-II approach has been proposed as a new way to understand how safety is achieved in complex systems that may improve quality and safety initiatives and enhance GP and trainee curriculum coverage. Safety-II aims to maximise the number of events with a successful outcome by exploring everyday work. Work-as-done often differs from work-as-imagined in protocols and guidelines and various ways to achieve success, dependent on work conditions, may be possible. Traditional approaches to improve the quality and safety of care often aim to constrain variability but understanding and managing variability may be a more beneficial approach. The application of a Safety-II approach to incident investigation, quality improvement projects, prospective analysis of risk in systems and performance indicators may offer improved insight into system performance leading to more effective change. The way forward may be to combine the Safety-II approach with 'traditional' methods to enhance patient safety training, outcomes and curriculum coverage.

Quality improvement training for core medical and general practice trainees: a pilot study of project participation, completion and journal publication.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Small-scale quality improvement projects are expected to make a significant contribution towards improving the quality of healthcare. Enabling doctors-in-training to design and lead quality improvement projects is important preparation for independent practice. Participation is mandatory in speciality training curricula. However, provision of training and ongoing support in quality improvement methods and practice is variable. We aimed to design and deliver a quality improvement training package to core medical and general practice specialty trainees and evaluate impact in terms of project participation, completion and publication in a healthcare journal. METHOD: A quality improvement training package was developed and delivered to core medical trainees and general practice specialty trainees in the west of Scotland encompassing a 1-day workshop and mentoring during completion of a quality improvement project over 3 months. A mixed methods evaluation was undertaken and data collected via questionnaire surveys, knowledge assessment, and formative assessment of project proposals, completed quality improvement projects and publication success. RESULTS: Twenty-three participants attended the training day with 20 submitting a project proposal (87%). Ten completed quality improvement projects (43%), eight were judged as satisfactory (35%), and four were submitted and accepted for journal publication (17%). Knowledge and confidence in aspects of quality improvement improved during the pilot, while early feedback on project proposals was valued (85.7%). CONCLUSION: This small study reports modest success in training core medical trainees and general practice specialty trainees in quality improvement. Many gained knowledge of, confidence in and experience of quality improvement, while journal publication was shown to be possible. The development of educational resources to aid quality improvement project completion and mentoring support is necessary if expectations for quality improvement are to be realised.

A before and after study of warfarin monitoring in a single region as part of the Scottish patient safety programme in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Warfarin is an effective drug for patients at risk of thromboembolic events, but sub-optimal pharmacological management may cause significant harm. As part of the Scottish patient safety programme in primary care, one health board region aimed to determine if the international normalised ratio control for patients taking warfarin in general practice improved over the first 12 months of participation. METHODS: A before and after study of a multi-intervention improvement strategy was employed that combined financial incentivisation, a regional learning collaborative, clinical care bundle implementation, audit and feedback and clinical 'safety champions'. The main patient outcome measures were: mean time in therapeutic range; proportion with good control (time in therapeutic range >60%) and excellent control (time in therapeutic range > 75%); and the proportion of very abnormal results (international normalised ratio < 1.5 or >5). Chi-square tests were used to determine statistical differences. RESULTS: In total, 49 of 55 general practices participated (89%) with 33/55 providing usable data (60%) on 1480 patients (before) and 1946 patients (after), respectively. Improvements were observed in mean time in therapeutic range (P < 0.05) as well as in the proportion of patients with good control (time in therapeutic range > 60%, P < 0.01) and excellent control (time in therapeutic range > 75%, P = 0.06). A reduction in the proportion of very abnormal results (international normalised ratio < 1.5 or >5) was also observed (P < 0.01), while the mean number of patient attendances reduced (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a complex safety improvement intervention via a national patient safety programme has resulted in modest improvements in the control of warfarin monitoring in a single region. These improvements may potentially reduce the incidence of serious adverse events. The study method, interventions and findings should be of interest to primary care settings with similar warfarin management arrangements internationally.

Quality and safety issues highlighted by patients in the handling of laboratory test results by general practices--a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In general practice internationally, many care teams handle large numbers of laboratory test results relating to patients in their care. Related research about safety issues is limited with most of the focus on this workload from secondary care and in North American settings. Little has been published in relation to primary health care in the UK and wider Europe. This study aimed to explore experiences and perceptions of patients with regards to the handling of test results by general practices. METHODS: A qualitative research approach was used with patients. The setting was west of Scotland general practices from one National Health Service territorial board area. Patients were purposively sampled from practice held lists of patients who received a number of laboratory tests because of chronic medical problems or surveillance of high risk medicines. Focus groups were held and were audio-recorded. Tapes were transcribed and subjected to qualitative analysis. Transcripts were coded and codes merged into themes by two of the researchers. RESULTS: 19 participants from four medical practices took part in four focus groups. The main themes identified were: 1. Patients lacked awareness of the results handling process in their practice. 2. Patients usually did not contact their practice for test results, unless they considered themselves to be ill. 3. Patients were concerned about the appropriateness of administrators being involved in results handling. 4. Patients were concerned about breaches of confidentiality when administrators were involved in results handling. 5. Patients valued the use of dedicated results handling staff. 6. Patients welcomed the use of technology to alert them to results being available, and valued the ability to choose how this happened. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the quality and safety of care problems associated with results handling systems and adds to our knowledge of the issues that impact in these areas. Practices need to be aware that patients may not contact them about results, and they need to publicise their results handling processes to patients and take steps to reassure patients about confidentiality with regards to administrators.