Enhancing the quality of medicine handover at hospital discharge: a priority setting workshop.

BACKGROUND: When a patient is discharged from hospital it is essential that their general practitioner (GPs) and community pharmacist are informed of changes to their medicines. This necessitates effective communication and information-sharing between hospitals and primary care clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To identify priority medicine handover issues and solutions to inform the co-design and development of a multifaceted intervention. METHOD: A modified nominal group technique was used to reach consensus on medicine handover priority areas. The first hour of an interactive 2-hr workshop focused on ranking pre-identified issues drawn from literature. In the second hour, participants identified solutions that they then ranked from highest to lowest priority through an online platform. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse workshop data. RESULTS: In total 32 participants attended the workshop including hospital doctors (n = 8, 25.0%), GPs and hospital pharmacists (n = 6 each, 18.8%), consumers and community pharmacists (n = 4 each, 12.5%), and both hospital and aged care facility nurses (n = 2 each 6.3%). From the list of 23 issues, the highest ranked issue was high workload and time pressures impacting the discharge process (22/32). From the list of 36 solutions, the participants identified two solutions that were equally ranked highest (12/27 each). They were mandating that patients leave hospital with a discharge summary, including medication reconciliation information and, developing an integrated information technology system where medication summary and notes are accessible for primary, secondary and tertiary health provider. CONCLUSION: The consensus process highlighted challenges in hospital procedures where potential solutions may be implemented through co-design of a multifaceted intervention to improve medicine handover quality.

Improving health system responses when patients are harmed: a protocol for a multistage mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: At least 10% of hospital admissions in high-income countries, including Australia, are associated with patient safety incidents, which contribute to patient harm ('adverse events'). When a patient is seriously harmed, an investigation or review is undertaken to reduce the risk of further incidents occurring. Despite 20 years of investigations into adverse events in healthcare, few evaluations provide evidence of their quality and effectiveness in reducing preventable harm.This study aims to develop consistent, informed and robust best practice guidance, at state and national levels, that will improve the response, learning and health system improvements arising from adverse events. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The setting will be healthcare organisations in Australian public health systems in the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. We will apply a multistage mixed-methods research design with evaluation and in-situ feasibility testing. This will include literature reviews (stage 1), an assessment of the quality of 300 adverse event investigation reports from participating hospitals (stage 2), and a policy/procedure document review from participating hospitals (stage 3) as well as focus groups and interviews on perspectives and experiences of investigations with healthcare staff and consumers (stage 4). After triangulating results from stages 1-4, we will then codesign tools and guidance for the conduct of investigations with staff and consumers (stage 5) and conduct feasibility testing on the guidance (stage 6). Participants will include healthcare safety systems policymakers and staff (n=120-255) who commission, undertake or review investigations and consumers (n=20-32) who have been impacted by adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH02007 and 2023/ETH02341).The research findings will be incorporated into best practice guidance, published in international and national journals and disseminated through conferences.

Implementing decision aids for cardiovascular disease prevention: stakeholder interviews and case studies in Australian primary care.

BACKGROUND: Australian cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk assessment, but less than half of eligible patients have the required risk factors recorded due to fragmented implementation over the last decade. Co-designed decision aids for general practitioners (GPs) and consumers have been developed that improve knowledge barriers to guideline-recommended CVD risk assessment and management. This study used a stakeholder consultation process to identify and pilot test the feasibility of implementation strategies for these decision aids in Australian primary care. METHODS: This mixed methods study included: (1) stakeholder consultation to map existing implementation strategies (2018-20); (2) interviews with 29 Primary Health Network (PHN) staff from all Australian states and territories to identify new implementation opportunities (2021); (3) pilot testing the feasibility of low, medium, and high resource implementation strategies (2019-21). Framework Analysis was used for qualitative data and Google analytics provided decision support usage data over time. RESULTS: Informal stakeholder discussions indicated a need to partner with existing programs delivered by the Heart Foundation and PHNs. PHN interviews identified the importance of linking decision aids with GP education resources, quality improvement activities, and consumer-focused prevention programs. Participants highlighted the importance of integration with general practice processes, such as business models, workflows, medical records and clinical audit software. Specific implementation strategies were identified as feasible to pilot during COVID-19: (1) low resource: adding website links to local health area guidelines for clinicians and a Heart Foundation toolkit for primary care providers; (2) medium resource: presenting at GP education conferences and integrating the resources into audit and feedback reports; (3) high resource: auto-populate the risk assessment and decision aids from patient records via clinical audit software. CONCLUSIONS: This research identified a wide range of feasible strategies to implement decision aids for CVD risk assessment and management. The findings will inform the translation of new CVD guidelines in primary care. Future research will use economic evaluation to explore the added value of higher versus lower resource implementation strategies.

Implementing patient decision aids into general practice clinical decision support systems: Feasibility study in cardiovascular disease prevention.

Objective: Patient decision aids (DA) facilitate shared decision making, but implementation remains a challenge. This study tested the feasibility of integrating a cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention DA into general practice software. Methods: We developed a desktop computer application (app) to auto-populate a CVD prevention DA from general practice medical records. 4 practices received monthly practice reports from July-Nov 2021, and 2 practices use the app with limited engagement. CVD risk assessment data and app use were monitored. Results: The proportion of eligible patients with complete CVD risk assessment data ranged from 59 to 94%. Monthly app use ranged from 0 to 285 sessions by 13 individual practice staff including GPs and nurses, with staff using the app an average of 67 sessions during the study period. High users in the 5-month study period continued to use the app for 10 months. Low use was attributed to reduced staff capacity during COVID-19 and technical issues. Conclusion: High users sustained interest in the app, but additional strategies are required for low users. The study will inform implementation plans for new guidelines. Innovation: This study showed it is feasible to integrate patient decision aids with Australian general practice software, despite the challenges of COVID-19 at the time of the study.

Medication reconciliation at hospital discharge: A qualitative exploration of acute care nurses' perceptions of their roles and responsibilities.

BACKGROUND: Safe medication management is a cornerstone of nursing practice. Nurses prepare patients for discharge which includes the ongoing safe administration of medications. Medication reconciliation at hospital discharge is an interprofessional activity that helps to identify and rectify medication discrepancies or errors to ensure the accuracy and completeness of discharge medications and information. Nurses have a role in medication safety; however, their involvement in medication reconciliation at hospital discharge is poorly described. The study's aim was to describe acute care nurses' perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in medication reconciliation at hospital discharge, including barriers and enablers. DESIGN: Using focus groups, this exploratory descriptive study gathered qualitative data from nurses working in five acute care clinical units (medical, surgical and transit/discharge lounge) at a tertiary Australian hospital. The data were analysed using inductive content analysis and reported following the COREQ checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-two nurses were recruited. Three themes emerged from the data: nurses' medication reconciliation role involves chasing, checking and educating; burden of undertaking medication reconciliation at hospital discharge; team collaboration and communication in medication reconciliation. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses had a minor role in medication reconciliation at hospital discharge due to a lack of organisation clinical practice guidance and specialised training. Standardising interprofessional medication reconciliation processes and increasing nurses' involvement will help to streamline this task, reduce discharge delays, workload pressure and improve patient safety. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Medication reconciliation at hospital discharge is an interprofessional patient safety activity, however little is known about nurse's role and responsibilities. This study reports nurses' important contribution to patient safety in terms of healthcare team coordination, medication checking and patient education. Supportive organisations and collaborative teams increased nurses' willingness to complete this activity.

Supporting quality and safety in general practice: Response rates to computer decision support.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Primary health networks (PHNs) are tasked with supporting quality improvement in general practice. Traditional methods to do this are labour intensive and lack impact measurement. We aimed to measure general practitioner (GP) response rates to computer decision support at the point of care. METHOD: Gold Coast PHN developed a decision support tool to deliver real-time medication safety alerts and prompts for interventions and record the GP intervention in 80 general practices covering 519,000 patients. RESULTS: From July 2020 to June 2021, there were 3153 alerts triggered for 2328 patients, with 1250 of the suggested interventions being done (40%). From January 2021 to June 2021, 19,019 prompts were triggered during a visit for 17,398 patients, with 5444 of the suggested interventions being done (22%). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that GPs respond to automated, real-time medication safety alerts and care prompts that are specific to individual patient need without the need for intensive PHN input.

The role of Primary Health Networks in cardiovascular disease prevention: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Since the inception of PHNs in Australia, their role in implementing chronic disease prevention activities in general practice has been unclear. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the views of PHN staff on the role of PHNs in promoting prevention, with a focus on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. METHODS: Content analysis of PHN Needs Assessments was conducted to inform interview questions. Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 PHN staff, between June and December 2020, in varied roles across 18 PHNs in all Australian states and territories. Transcribed audio recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour. RESULTS: We identified three main themes: (a) Informal prevention: All respondents agreed the role of PHNs in prevention was indirect and, for the most part, outside the formal remit of PHN Key Performance Indicators (KPIs.) Prevention activities were conducted in partnership with external stakeholders, professional development and quality improvement programs, and PHN-funded data extraction and analysis software for general practice. (b) Constrained by financial incentives: Most interviewees felt the role of PHNs in prevention was contingent on the financial drivers provided by the Commonwealth government, such as Medicare funding and national quality improvement programs. (c) Shaped through competing priorities: The role of PHNs in prevention is a function of competing priorities. There was strong agreement amongst participants that the myriad competing priorities from government and local needs assessments impeded prevention activities. CONCLUSIONS: PHNs are well-positioned to foster prevention activities in general practice. However, we found that PHNs role in prevention activities was informal, constrained by financial incentives and shaped through competing priorities. Prevention can be improved through a more explicit prevention focus at the Commonwealth government level. To optimise the role of PHNs, therefore, requires prioritising prevention, aligning it with KPIs and supporting stakeholders like general practice.

Incidence, origins and avoidable harm of missed opportunities in diagnosis: longitudinal patient record review in 21 English general practices.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error is a global patient safety priority. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence, origins and avoidable harm of diagnostic errors in English general practice. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to make a correct or timely diagnosis based on the evidence available (missed diagnostic opportunities, MDOs). METHOD: Retrospective medical record reviews identified MDOs in 21 general practices. In each practice, two trained general practitioner reviewers independently conducted case note reviews on 100 randomly selected adult consultations performed during 2013-2014. Consultations where either reviewer identified an MDO were jointly reviewed. RESULTS: Across 2057 unique consultations, reviewers agreed that an MDO was possible, likely or certain in 89 cases or 4.3% (95% CI 3.6% to 5.2%) of reviewed consultations. Inter-reviewer agreement was higher than most comparable studies (Fleiss' kappa=0.63). Sixty-four MDOs (72%) had two or more contributing process breakdowns. Breakdowns involved problems in the patient-practitioner encounter such as history taking, examination or ordering tests (main or secondary factor in 61 (68%) cases), performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests (31; 35%) and follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information (43; 48%). 37% of MDOs were rated as resulting in moderate to severe avoidable patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: Although MDOs occurred in fewer than 5% of the investigated consultations, the high numbers of primary care contacts nationally suggest that several million patients are potentially at risk of avoidable harm from MDOs each year. Causes of MDOs were frequently multifactorial, suggesting the need for development and evaluation of multipronged interventions, along with policy changes to support them.

Characterising the nature of clinical incidents reported across a tertiary health service: a retrospective audit.

Objective Reducing the number of adverse patient safety incidents (PSIs) requires careful monitoring and active management processes. However, there is limited information about the association between hospital settings and the type of PSI. The aims of this study were to describe the severity, nature and characteristics of PSIs from an analysis of their incidence and to assess the relationships between the type of PSI and its setting. Methods A retrospective audit of a clinical incident management system database was conducted for a tertiary health service in Australia with 620000 residents. Records of PSIs reported for patients between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2018 with Safety Assessment Codes (SAC) of PSIs were extracted from the clinical incident management system and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. PSIs involving paediatrics, mental health and primary care were excluded. Results In all, 4385 eligible PSIs were analysed: 24 SAC1, 107 SAC2 and 4254 SAC3 incidents. Across reported PSIs, the most common incidents related to skin injury (28.6%), medication (23.2%), falls (19.9%) and clinical process (8.5%). Falls were reported significantly more often in the medical division (χ2=43.85, P<0.001), whereas skin injury incidents were reported significantly more often in the surgical division (χ2=22.56, P<0.001). Conclusions A better understanding of the nature of PSIs and where they occur may lead to more targeted quality improvement strategies. What is known about this topic? Improving patient safety requires effective safety learning systems, which include incident reporting and management processes. Although incident reporting systems typically underestimate the incidence of iatrogenic harm, they do provide valuable opportunities to improve the future safety of health care. What does this paper add? This study reports the extent and severity of different types of PSIs that typically occur in a large tertiary hospital in Australia. The most common types of incidents are skin injury, falls, medication errors and clinical process. There are empirical associations between the type of PSI and clinical division (medical, surgical). What are the implications for practitioners? A greater understanding of the types of PSI and the settings in which they occur may inform the development of more targeted quality improvement strategies that potentially reduce their incidence.

User redesign, testing and evaluation of the Monitoring Risk and Improving System Safety (MoRISS) checklist for the general practice work environment.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate checking of safety-critical issues can compromise care quality in general practice (GP) work settings. Adopting a systemic, methodical approach may lead to improved standardisation of processes and reliability of task performance, strengthening the safety systems concerned. This study aimed to revise, modify and test the content and relevance of a previously validated safety checklist to the current GP context. METHODS: A multimethod study was undertaken in Scottish GP involving: consensus building workshops with users and 'experts' to revise checklist content; regional testing of the modified checklist and follow-up usability evaluation survey of users. Quantitative data underwent descriptive statistical analyses and selected survey free-text comments are presented. RESULTS: A redesigned checklist tool consisting of eight themes (eg, medication safety) and 61 items (eg, out-of-date stock is appropriately disposed) was agreed by 53 users/experts with items reclassified as: mandatory (n=25), essential (n=24) and advisory (n=12). Totally 42/55 GPs tested the tool and submitted checklist data (76.4%). The mean aggregated results demonstrated 92.0% compliance with all 61 checklist items (range: 83.0%-98.0%) and 25/42 GP managers responded to the survey (59.5%) and reported high mean levels of agreement on the usefulness of the checklist (77.0%), ease of use (89.0%), learnability (94.0%) and satisfaction (78.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The checklist was comprehensively redesigned as a practical safety monitoring and improvement tool for potential implementation in Scottish GP. Testing and evaluation demonstrated high levels of checklist content compliance and strong usability feedback, but some variation was evident indicating room for improvement in current safety-critical checking processes. The checklist should be of interest in similar GP settings internationally and to other areas of primary care practice.

The accuracy, completeness and timeliness of discharge medication information and implementing medication reconciliation: A cross-sectional survey of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: General practitioners (GPs) require accurate medication information to care for recently discharged hospital patients. Pre-discharge medication reconciliation improves the accuracy of patient medication lists that GPs receive. This study aimed to explore GPs' perceptions of the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of hospital discharge medication information, and how they undertake medication reconciliation. METHOD: Using a cross-sectional online survey, quantitative and qualitative data were collected from a convenience sample of GPs practising across the Gold Coast, Australia. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Twelve GPs were recruited. Patient hospital discharge medication information was mostly accurate and complete, but delays in receiving this information affected the ability of GPs to undertake medication reconciliation. DISCUSSION: Receiving accurate and timely patient discharge medication information can reduce errors. Optimising the communication of medication information to GPs may improve patient safety.

Quality of care for acute abdominal pain in children.

OBJECTIVE: To assess quality of care for children presenting with acute abdominal pain using validated indicators. DESIGN: Audit of care quality for acute abdominal pain according to 21 care quality indicators developed and validated in four stages. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medical records of children aged 1-15 years receiving care in 2012-2013 were sampled from 57 general practitioners, 34 emergency departments (ED) and 28 hospitals across three Australian states; 6689 medical records were screened for visits for acute abdominal pain and audited by trained paediatric nurses. OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to 21 care quality indicators and three bundles of indicators: bundle A-History; bundle B-Examination; bundle C-Imaging. RESULTS: Five hundred and fourteen children had 696 visits for acute abdominal pain and adherence was assessed for 9785 individual indicators. The overall adherence was 69.9% (95% CI 64.8% to 74.6%). Adherence to individual indicators ranged from 21.6% for assessment of dehydration to 91.4% for appropriate ordering of imaging. Adherence was low for bundle A-History (29.4%) and bundle B-Examination (10.2%), and high for bundle C-Imaging (91.4%). Adherence to the 21 indicators overall was significantly lower in general practice (62.7%, 95% CI 57.0% to 68.1%) compared with ED (86.0%, 95% CI 83.4% to 88.4%; p<0.0001) and hospital inpatient settings (87.9%, 95% CI 83.1% to 91.8%; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variation in care quality for indicator bundles and care settings. Future work should explore how validated care quality indicator assessments can be embedded into clinical workflows to support continuous care quality improvement.

The quality of preventive care for pre-school aged children in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Variable and poor care quality are important causes of preventable patient harm. Many patients receive less than recommended care, but the extent of the problem remains largely unknown. The CareTrack Kids (CTK) research programme sought to address this evidence gap by developing a set of indicators to measure the quality of care for common paediatric conditions. In this study, we focus on one clinical area, 'preventive care' for pre-school aged children. Our objectives were two-fold: (i) develop and validate preventive care quality indicators and (ii) apply them in general medical practice to measure adherence. METHODS: Clinical experts (n = 6) developed indicator questions (IQs) from clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations using a multi-stage modified Delphi process, which were pilot tested in general practice. The medical records of Australian children (n = 976) from general practices (n = 80) in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia identified as having a consultation for one of 17 CTK conditions of interest were retrospectively reviewed by trained paediatric nurses. Statistical analyses were performed to estimate percentage compliance and its 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: IQs (n = 43) and eight care 'bundles' were developed and validated. Care was delivered in line with the IQs in 43.3% of eligible healthcare encounters (95% CI 30.5-56.7). The bundles of care with the highest compliance were 'immunisation' (80.1%, 95% CI 65.7-90.4), 'anthropometric measurements' (52.7%, 95% CI 35.6-69.4) and 'nutrition assessments' (38.5%, 95% CI 24.3-54.3), and lowest for 'visual assessment' (17.9%, 95% CI 8.2-31.9), 'musculoskeletal examinations' (24.4%, 95% CI 13.1-39.1) and 'cardiovascular examinations' (30.9%, 95% CI 12.3-55.5). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first known attempt to develop specific preventive care quality indicators and measure their delivery to Australian children in general practice. Our findings that preventive care is not reliably delivered to all Australian children and that there is substantial variation in adherence with the IQs provide a starting point for clinicians, researchers and policy makers when considering how the gap between recommended and actual care may be narrowed. The findings may also help inform the development of specific improvement interventions, incentives and national standards.

Facilitators and barriers to safer care in Scottish general practice: a qualitative study of the implementation of the trigger review method using normalisation process theory.

OBJECTIVES: Patient safety is a key concern of modern health systems, with numerous approaches to support safety. One, the trigger review method (TRM), is promoted nationally in Scotland as an approach to improve the safety of care in general medical practice. However, it remains unclear which factors are facilitating or hindering its implementation. The aim of this study was to identify the important factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of the TRM in this setting. DESIGN: Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was theoretically informed using normalisation process theory (NPT). SETTING: Scottish general practice. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 28 semistructured interviews with general practitioners (n=12), practice nurses (n=11) and practice managers (n=5) in Scotland. RESULTS: We identified four important factors that facilitated or hindered implementation: (1) the amount of time and allocated resources; (2) integration of the TRM into existing initiatives and frameworks facilitated implementation and justified participants' involvement; (3) the characteristics of the reviewers-implementation was facilitated by experienced, reflective clinicians with leadership roles in their teams; (4) the degree to which participants perceived the TRM as acceptable, feasible and useful. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first known attempt to investigate how the TRM is implemented and perceived by general practice clinicians and staff. The four main factors that facilitated TRM implementation are comparable with the wider implementation science literature, suggesting that a small number of specific factors determine the success of most, if not all, complex healthcare interventions. These factors can be identified, described and understood through theoretical frameworks such as NPT and are amenable to intervention. Researchers and policymakers should proactively identify and address these factors.

Never events in general practice: a focus group study exploring the views of English and Scottish general practitioners of 'never events'.

OBJECTIVES: To examine general practitioner (GP) understanding of the never event (NE) concept in general practice, and to identify potential enablers and barriers to implementation in UK general practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. The data were analysed thematically and were informed by the normalisation process theory. SETTING: General practice in Northwest England and Southwest Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 25 GPs took part in five focus groups. 13 GPs were female and 12 male with an age range of 28-60. RESULTS: The NE approach of avoiding serious preventable adverse outcomes from healthcare fitted with participants expectations of the delivery of care but the implementation of strategies to prevent the specific NE was considered complex and variable. The main themes identified participants' understandings and perceived limitations of the NE concept; the embedded layers of responsibility to implement NE within practices and the work required for implementation within general practices. Participants' accounts highlighted the differential nature of work in general practice and that the implementation of initiatives to address specific NE should be situated within a learning and systems approach to implementation. Some NEs were considered more relevant and amenable to simple solutions than others which could influence implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The NE concept was considered overall an important approach to help address key primary care patient safety issues. The utility of individual NEs may vary depending on the complexity of the initiatives that would be needed to manage related risks to as low as reasonably practicable.

Never Events in UK General Practice: A Survey of the Views of General Practitioners on Their Frequency and Acceptability as a Safety Improvement Approach.

BACKGROUND: Never events (NEs) are serious preventable patient safety incidents and are a component of formal quality and safety improvement (Q&SI) policies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. A preliminary list of NEs for UK general practice has been developed, but the frequency of these events, or their acceptability to general practitioner (GPs) as a Q&SI approach, is currently unknown. The study aims to estimate (1) the frequency of 10 NEs occurring within GPs' own practices and (2) the extent to which the NE approach is perceived as acceptable for use. METHODS: General practitioners were surveyed, and mixed-effects logistic regression models examined the relationship between GP opinions of NE, estimates of NE frequency, and the characteristics of the GPs and their practices. RESULTS: Responses from 556 GPs in 412 practices were analyzed. Most participants (70%-88%, depending on the NE) agreed that the described incident should be designated as a NE. Three NEs were estimated to have occurred in less than 4% of practices in the last year; however, two NEs were estimated to have occurred in 45% to 61% of the practices. General practitioners reporting that a NE had occurred in their practice in the last year were significantly less likely to agree with the designation as a NE compared with GPs not reporting a NE (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI = 0.36-0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The NE approach may have Q&SI potential for general practice, but further work to adapt the concept and content is required.

Assessing the Quality of the Management of Tonsillitis among Australian Children: A Population-Based Sample Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were twofold: (1) to design and validate a set of clinical indicators of appropriate care for tonsillitis and (2) to measure the level of tonsillitis care that is in line with guideline recommendations in a sample of Australian children. STUDY DESIGN: A set of tonsillitis care indicators was developed from available national and international guidelines and validated in 4 stages. This research used the same design as the CareTrack Kids study, which was described in detail elsewhere. SETTING: Samples of patient records from general practices, emergency departments, and hospital admissions were assessed. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patient records of children aged 0 to 15 years were assessed for the presence of, and adherence to, the indicators for care delivered in 2012 and 2013. RESULTS: Eleven indicators were developed. The records of 821 children (mean age, 5.0 years; SD, 4.0) with tonsillitis were screened. The reviewers conducted 2354 eligible indicator assessments across 1127 visits. Adherence to 6 indicators could be assessed and ranged from 14.3% to 73.2% (interquartile range 31.5% to 72.2%). CONCLUSION: Our main findings are consistent with the international literature: the treatment of many children who present with confirmed or suspected tonsillitis is inconsistent with current guidelines. Future research should consider how the indicators could be applied in a structured and automated manner to increase the reliability and efficiency of record reviews and help raise clinicians' awareness of appropriate tonsillitis management.

'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.

Implementation of the trigger review method in Scottish general practices: patient safety outcomes and potential for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To report the implementation of a trigger review method (TRM) in primary care, with a particular focus on its impact on patient safety-related findings. DESIGN: Cross-sectional structured review of random samples (n=25) of electronic records of 'high-risk' patient groups conducted twice per year (each for a retrospective review period of 3 months). SETTING: 274 general practices in two regions of Scotland. INTERVENTION: Contractual incentivisation of TRM implementation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practice participation rate; characteristics of patient safety incidents (PSIs), for example, their prevalence, type, perceived severity and preventability; and actions or intended actions undertaken during and after trigger reviews. RESULTS: 274 of 318 eligible practices (86.2%) returned 536 TRM Summary Reports, which outlined findings from reviews of 13 351 electronic patient records. 1887 (14.1%) PSIs were recorded, with a mean of 3.5 (536/1887) per Summary Report (SD±1.6). Of these, 830 (44.0%) were judged to have caused mild to moderate harm, with 262 (13.9%) cases resulting in more severe harm. A total of 852 PSIs (46.2%) were rated as preventable or potentially preventable. In 459 Summary Reports (85.6%), reviewers indicated implementing one or more improvement actions during the actual TRM process; and 2177 actions after completion of the TRM process (mean 4.1 (SD±3.3) actions per review). CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of clinician reviewers 'successfully' applied the TRM, uncovering important but previously undetected PSIs, which prompted care teams to take action during and after the trigger reviews. The method and data generated have the potential to drive improvements in related care processes at the practice, regional and national health system level. TRM arguably increased 'ownership' of the safety challenge and clinician engagement in implementing their solutions to specific problems identified. Our results suggest that the TRM has potential as a feasible, pragmatic approach to improving primary care safety and quality.