Evaluating a co-designed care bundle to improve patient safety at discharge from adult and adolescent mental health services (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH): protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients being discharged from inpatient mental wards often describe safety risks in terms of inadequate information sharing and involvement in discharge decisions. Through stakeholder engagement, we co-designed, developed and adapted two versions of a care bundle intervention, the SAFER Mental Health care bundle for adult and youth inpatient mental health settings (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH, respectively), that look to address these concerns through the introduction of new or improved processes of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two uncontrolled before-and-after feasibility studies, where all participants will receive the intervention. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-MH in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged 18 years or older who are being discharged and the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-YMH intervention in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged between 14 and 18 years who are being discharged. The baseline period and intervention periods are both 6 weeks. SAFER-MH will be implemented in three wards and SAFER-YMH in one or two wards, ideally across different trusts within England. We will use quantitative (eg, questionnaires, completion forms) and qualitative (eg, interviews, process evaluation) methods to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the two versions of the intervention. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients/wards should be included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee and Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/SW/0096 and 22/LO/0404). Research findings will be disseminated with participating sites and shared in various ways to engage different audiences. We will present findings at international and national conferences, and publish in open-access, peer-reviewed journals.

Predictors and population health outcomes of persistent high GP turnover in English general practices: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: English primary care faces significant challenges, including 'persistent high turnover' of general practitioners (GPs) in some partnerships. It is unknown whether there are specific predictors of persistent high turnover and whether it is associated with poorer population health outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. METHODS: We linked workforce data on individual GPs to practice-level data from Hospital Episode Statistics and the GP Patient Survey (2007-2019). We classified practices as experiencing persistent high turnover if more than 10% of GPs changed in at least 3 consecutive years. We used multivariable logistic or linear regression models for panel data with random effects to identify practice characteristics that predicted persistent high turnover and associations of practice outcomes (higher emergency hospital use and patient experience of continuity of care, access to care and overall patient satisfaction) with persistent high turnover. RESULTS: Each year, 6% of English practices experienced persistent high turnover, with a maximum of 9% (688/7619) in 2014. Larger practices, in more deprived areas and with a higher morbidity burden were more likely to experience persistent high turnover. Persistent high turnover was associated with 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1) more emergency hospital attendances per 100 patients, 0.1 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) more admissions per 100 patients, 5.2% (95% CI -5.6% to -4.9%) fewer people seeing their preferred doctor, 10.6% (95% CI-11.4% to -9.8%) fewer people reporting obtaining an appointment on the same day and 1.3% (95% CI -1.6% to -1.1%) lower overall satisfaction with the practice. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent high turnover is independently linked to indicators of poorer service and health outcomes. Although causality needs to be further investigated, strategies and policies may be needed to both reduce high turnover and support practices facing challenges with high GP turnover when it occurs.

Visual impairment and medication safety: a protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals with a visual impairment in the UK was estimated a few years ago to be around 1.8 million. People can be visually impaired from birth, childhood, early adulthood or later in life. Those with visual impairment are subject to health inequities and increased risk for patient safety incidents in comparison to the general population. They are also known to be at an increased risk of experiencing medication errors compared to those without visual impairment. In view of this, this review aims to understand the issues of medication safety for VI people. METHODS/DESIGN: Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. Our search strategy will include search combinations of two key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies. They will include studies that relate to both medication safety and visual impairment. Two reviewers (SG and LR) will screen all the titles and abstracts. SG, LR, RM, SCS and PL will perform study selection and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected will include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), medication safety incident type and characteristics. DISCUSSION: The review will summarise the literature relating to medication safety and visual impairment.

Rates of turnover among general practitioners: a retrospective study of all English general practices between 2007 and 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify general practitioners' (GPs') turnover in England between 2007 and 2019, describe trends over time, regional differences and associations with social deprivation or other practice characteristics. DESIGN: A retrospective study of annual cross-sectional data. SETTING: All general practices in England (8085 in 2007, 6598 in 2019). METHODS: We calculated turnover rates, defined as the proportion of GPs leaving a practice. Rates and their median, 25th and 75th percentiles were calculated by year and region. The proportion of practices with persistent high turnover (>10%) over consecutive years were also calculated. A negative binomial regression model assessed the association between turnover and social deprivation or other practice characteristics. RESULTS: Turnover rates increased over time. The 75th percentile in 2009 was 11%, but increased to 14% in 2019. The highest turnover rate was observed in 2013-2014, corresponding to the 75th percentile of 18.2%. Over time, regions experienced increases in turnover rates, although it varied across English regions. The proportion of practices with high (10% to 40%) turnover within a year almost doubled from 14% in 2009 to 27% in 2019. A rise in the number of practices with persistent high turnover (>10%) for at least three consecutive years was also observed, from 2.7% (2.3%-3.1%) in 2007 to 6.3% (5.7%-6.9%) in 2017. The statistical analyses revealed that practice-area deprivation was moderately associated with turnover rate, with practices in the most deprived area having higher turnover rates compared with practices in the least deprived areas (incidence rate ratios 1.09; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13). CONCLUSIONS: GP turnover has increased in the last decade nationally, with regional variability. Greater attention to GP turnover is needed, in the most deprived areas in particular, where GPs often need to deal with more complex health needs. There is a large cost associated with GP turnover and practices with very high persistent turnover need to be further researched, and the causes behind this identified, to allow support strategies and policies to be developed.

Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of two cross sectional studies. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients from Australian and English primary care settings. MEASURES: Patients' self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented. RESULTS: A total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent. CONCLUSIONS: The nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.

Protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study evaluating a codesigned patient safety guide in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Patients and carers should be active partners in patient safety with healthcare professionals and be empowered to use personalised approaches to identify safety concerns and work together to prevent them. This protocol paper details a study to examine the feasibility of a multicomponent intervention to involve patients and/or carers in patient safety in primary care in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a two-phase, non-randomised feasibility mixed methods pragmatic study of a patient safety guide for primary care (PSG-PC). 8 general practices will recruit 120 patient and/or carer participants. All patient and/or carer participants will receive the PSG-PC. It will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the PSG-PC in primary care settings in patients aged 18 years or older who attend appointments at general practice with health professionals four or more times per year as either patients or carers. It will identify secondary outcomes for improving patient safety, health status and patient empowerment, and reducing health service utilisation over 6 months between baseline and 6-month follow-ups. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients and practices will be needed. The study will be undertaken between January 2020 and September 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service London-West London and Gene Therapy Advisory Committee Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/LO/1289). Research findings will be disseminated with participating general practices and shared in a range of different ways to engage different audiences, including presenting at international and national conferences, publishing in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and facilitating dissemination workshops within local communities with patients, carers and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN90222092.

Patient feedback for safety improvement in primary care: results from a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient involvement in safety improvement is a developing area of research. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a patient feedback on safety intervention in primary care. Specifically, the intervention acceptability, fidelity, implementation enablers and barriers, scalability, and process of systematically collecting safety data were examined. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Mixed-methods feasibility trial with six purposively selected Australian primary care practices. INTERVENTION: The intervention comprised an iterative process with a cycle of measurement, learning, feedback, action planning and implementation period of 6 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Qualitative and quantitative data relating to feasibility measures (acceptability, fidelity, enablers, barriers, scalability and process of collecting safety data) were collected and analysed. RESULTS: A total of n=1750 patients provided feedback on safety. There was a statistically significant increase in mean patient safety scores indicating improved safety (4.30-4.37, p=0.002). Staff deemed the intervention acceptable, with minor recommendations for improvement. Intervention fidelity was high and implementation enablers were attributed to the intervention structure and framework, use of intuitive problem-solving approaches, and multidisciplinary team involvement. Practice-based safety interventions resulted in sustainable and measurable changes to systems for safety, such as increased access to care and improved patient information accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that this innovative patient feedback on safety intervention is feasible for scale-up to a larger effectiveness trial and further spread into policy and practice. This intervention complements existing safety improvement strategies and activities, and integrates into current patient feedback service requirements for Australian primary care. Further research is needed to examine the intervention effects on safety incident reduction.

Capturing Patients' Perspectives on Medication Safety: The Development of a Patient-Centered Medication Safety Framework.

OBJECTIVES: Medication safety incidents are common in primary care and contributory factors frameworks can assist in our understanding of their causes. A framework that is positioned from the perspective of patients would be advantageous in practice when seeking patient insights into medication safety. The aim of this study was to develop a patient-centered contributory factors framework for examining medication safety incidents. METHODS: A purposive sample of 106 members of the public, patients, and carers were recruited to take part in focus groups (n = 18). Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic framework. A patient and public involvement group was set up to undertake multiple roles in the research process, including the development of the focus group schedule, analysis of the data, and the construction of a patient-centered framework of contributory factors (patient-centered medication safety) and implementation checklist. RESULTS: The findings highlighted the importance of communication, supplies of medication and appliances, patient- and carer-related factors, healthcare professional factors, and computer systems and programs in the safe use of medicines. Some contributory factors were unique to primary care patients such as access to services and continuity of care. In conjunction with a patient and public involvement group, a framework of factors that patients believe contribute to medication safety incidents in primary care was developed that could be used by patients and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-centered medication safety framework and implementation checklist provides a novel tool to examine contributory factors that can lead to medication safety incidents from patients' perspective.

Investigating the feasibility of a patient feedback tool to improve safety in Australian primary care: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patients are a valuable source of information about ways to prevent harm in healthcare, and can provide feedback about the factors that contribute to safety incidents. The Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) is a novel and validated tool that captures patient feedback on safety and can be used by primary care practice teams to identify and prevent safety incidents. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of PC PMOS as a tool for data-driven safety improvement and monitoring in Australian primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Feasibility will be assessed using a mixed-methods approach to understand the enablers, barriers, acceptability, practicability, intervention fidelity and scalability of C PMOS as a tool for safety improvement across six primary care practices in the south-west region of Victoria. Patients over the age of 18 years attending their primary care practice will be invited to complete the PC PMOS when presenting for an appointment. Staff members at each practice will form a safety improvement team. Staff will then use the patient feedback to develop and implement specific safety interventions over a 6-month period. Data collection methods during the intervention period includes audio recordings of staff meetings, overt observations at training and education workshops, reflexive researcher insights, document collection and review. Data collection postintervention includes patient completion of the PC PMOS and semistructured interviews with staff. Triangulation and thematic analysis techniques will be employed to analyse the qualitative and content data. Analysis methods will use current evidence and models of healthcare culture, safety improvement and patient involvement in safety to inform the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group, Faculty of Health (HEAG-H 175_2017). Study results will be disseminated through local and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Validation of the Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) is designed to capture patient feedback about the contributing factors to patient safety incidents in primary care. It required further reliability and validity testing to produce a robust tool intended to improve safety in practice. METHOD: 490 adult patients in nine primary care practices in Greater Manchester, UK, completed the PC PMOS. Practice staff (n = 81) completed a survey on patient safety culture to assess convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the construct validity and internal reliability of the PC PMOS domains and items. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess discriminant validity, and Spearman correlation was conducted to establish test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Initial CFA results showed data did not fit the model well (a chi-square to df ratio (CMIN/DF) = 5.68; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.61, CFI = 0.57, SRMR = 0.13 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.10). On the basis of large modification indices (>10), standardised residuals >± 2.58 and assessment of item content; 22 items were removed. This revised nine-factor model (28 items) was found to fit the data satisfactorily (CMIN/DF = 2.51; GFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.04 and RMSEA = 0.05). New factors demonstrated good internal reliability with average inter-item correlations ranging from 0.20 to 0.70. The PC PMOS demonstrated good discriminant validity between primary care practices (F = 2.64, df = 72, p < 0.001) and showed some association with practice staff safety score (convergent validity) but failed to reach statistical significance (r = -0.64, k = 9, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This study led to a reliable and valid 28-item PC PMOS. It could enhance or complement current data collection methods used in primary care to identify and prevent error.

Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is growing internationally, but little is known about black and minority ethnic (BME) involvement and the factors influencing their involvement in health and social care research. OBJECTIVES: To characterize and critique the empirical literature on BME-PPI involvement in health and social care research. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic searches of six electronic bibliographic databases were undertaken, utilizing both MeSH and free-text terms to identify international empirical literature published between 1990 and 2016. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All study designs that report primary data that involved BME groups in health or social care research. Screening was conducted by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently. Data extraction focused on the level(s) of PPI involvement and where PPI activity occurred in the research cycle. Studies were quality-assessed using the guidelines for measuring the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Data were analysed using a narrative approach. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five studies were included with the majority undertaken in the USA focusing on African Americans and indigenous populations. Involvement most commonly occurred during the research design phase and least in data analysis and interpretation. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review investigating BME involvement in health and social care research internationally. While there is a widespread support for BME involvement, this is limited to particular phases of the research and particular ethnic subgroups. There is a need to understand factors that influence BME involvement in all parts of the research cycle.

Developing a patient-led electronic feedback system for quality and safety within Renal PatientView.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly acknowledged that patients can provide direct feedback about the quality and safety of their care through patient reporting systems. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of patients, healthcare professionals and researchers working in partnership to develop a patient-led quality and safety feedback system within an existing electronic health record (EHR), known as Renal PatientView (RPV). METHODS: Phase 1 (inception) involved focus groups (n = 9) and phase 2 (requirements) involved cognitive walkthroughs (n = 34) and 1:1 qualitative interviews (n = 34) with patients and healthcare professionals. A Joint Services Expert Panel (JSP) was convened to review the findings from phase 1 and agree the core principles and components of the system prototype. Phase 1 data were analysed using a thematic approach. Data from phase 1 were used to inform the design of the initial system prototype. Phase 2 data were analysed using the components of heuristic evaluation, resulting in a list of core principles and components for the final system prototype. RESULTS: Phase 1 identified four main barriers and facilitators to patients feeding back on quality and safety concerns. In phase 2, the JSP agreed that the system should be based on seven core principles and components. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders were able to work together to identify core principles and components for an electronic patient quality and safety feedback system in renal services. Tensions arose due to competing priorities, particularly around anonymity and feedback. Careful consideration should be given to the feasibility of integrating a novel element with differing priorities into an established system with existing functions and objectives.

Developing a primary care patient measure of safety (PC PMOS): a modified Delphi process and face validity testing.

BACKGROUND: Patients are a valuable source of information about ways to prevent harm in primary care and are in a unique position to provide feedback about the factors that contribute to safety incidents. Unlike in the hospital setting, there are currently no tools that allow the systematic capture of this information from patients. The aim of this study was to develop a quantitative primary care patient measure of safety (PC PMOS). METHODS: A two-stage approach was undertaken to develop questionnaire domains and items. Stage 1 involved a modified Delphi process. An expert panel reached consensus on domains and items based on three sources of information (validated hospital PMOS, previous research conducted by our study team and literature on threats to patient safety). Stage 2 involved testing the face validity of the questionnaire developed during stage 1 with patients and primary care staff using the 'think aloud' method. Following this process, the questionnaire was revised accordingly. RESULTS: The PC PMOS was received positively by both patients and staff during face validity testing. Barriers to completion included the length, relevance and clarity of questions. The final PC PMOS consisted of 50 items across 15 domains. The contributory factors to safety incidents centred on communication, access to care, patient-related factors, organisation and care planning, task performance and information flow. DISCUSSION: This is the first tool specifically designed for primary care settings, which allows patients to provide feedback about factors contributing to potential safety incidents. The PC PMOS provides a way for primary care organisations to learn about safety from the patient perspective and make service improvements with the aim of reducing harm in this setting. Future research will explore the reliability and construct validity of the PC PMOS.

Patient and carer identified factors which contribute to safety incidents in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients can have an important role in reducing harm in primary-care settings. Learning from patient experience and feedback could improve patient safety. Evidence that captures patients' views of the various contributory factors to creating safe primary care is largely absent. The aim of this study was to address this evidence gap. METHODS: Four focus groups and eight semistructured interviews were conducted with 34 patients and carers from south-east Australia. Participants were asked to describe their experiences of primary care. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and specific factors that contribute to safety incidents were identified in the analysis using the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF). Other factors emerging from the data were also ascertained and added to the analytical framework. RESULTS: Thirteen factors that contribute to safety incidents in primary care were ascertained. Five unique factors for the primary-care setting were discovered in conjunction with eight factors present in the YCFF from hospital settings. The five unique primary care contributing factors to safety incidents represented a range of levels within the primary-care system from local working conditions to the upstream organisational level and the external policy context. The 13 factors included communication, access, patient factors, external policy context, dignity and respect, primary-secondary interface, continuity of care, task performance, task characteristics, time in the consultation, safety culture, team factors and the physical environment. DISCUSSION: Patient and carer feedback of this type could help primary-care professionals better understand and identify potential safety concerns and make appropriate service improvements. The comprehensive range of factors identified provides the groundwork for developing tools that systematically capture the multiple contributory factors to patient safety.

Application of a tool for the evaluation of public and patient involvement in research.

OBJECTIVES: Public and patient involvement (PPI) is required at all stages of research by many funding bodies such as the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Given the high priority of PPI within NIHR programmes and the associated costs, it is important that the process of involvement and impact of PPI on health services research is evaluated. We aimed to develop a tool to quantitatively evaluate the quality of PPI in research from a PPI participant's perspective in order to inform the researchers about absolute level of quality (cross-sectional aspect) and changes in quality over time (longitudinal aspect). SETTING: A primary care patient safety translational research centre. PARTICIPANTS: The 12 members of the Research User Group (RUG) of Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. INTERVENTIONS: By their own choice each RUG member supported a specific research theme. The level of involvement varied from commenting on documents through to designing their own research projects. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES PLANNED: Measure absolute score and change in score over time in a nine-point Likert score within individuals. Compare Likert scores before undertaking PPI with scores after PPI activities. Evaluate the usefulness of a questionnaire based on a theoretical framework of personal and research factors. RESULTS: The questionnaire had an acceptable to good level of internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.74-0.81). The majority of the individuals met their initial expectations (11/12) and scored high across all factors. There was no significant change over time in the aggregate score over all factors and all individuals, but there were differences within individuals and factors. A ceiling effect limited the questionnaire's usefulness to measure increasing scores. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire has been useful in evaluating the early stages of a PPI group and may be generalisable to another setting.

"Risky business": a critical analysis of the role of crisis resolution and home treatment teams.

BACKGROUND: In 2000, the Department of Health for England recommended the creation of crisis resolution and home treatment teams (CRHTs) in order to reduce the number and length of psychiatric hospital admissions. Central to this was the role of gate-keeping all potential admissions. AIM: To examine the interface between crisis resolution and home treatment and other mental health services. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with mental health professionals (n = 25) at eight sites within one Strategic Health Authority region. RESULTS: Despite wide variation in approach and provision, all teams were confronting common issues related to tensions at both ends of the service user trajectory - on initial assessment and on discharge. CONCLUSION: The CRHT model is likely to be most effective when there is low staff turnover, flexibility in inter-team working arrangements and senior practitioners have both acute and community experience. Rather than being seen primarily as gatekeeper to the acute service, it would be better to take a system approach and view the CRHT as a resource for clients awaiting discharge or seeking to avoid hospital admission that is equally available to both acute and community services.

Developing a patient measure of safety (PMOS).

BACKGROUND: Tools that proactively identify factors that contribute to accidents have been developed within high-risk industries. Although patients provide feedback on their experience of care in hospitals, there is no existing measure which asks patients to comment on the factors that contribute to patient safety incidents. The aim of the current study was to determine those contributory factors from the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) that patients are able to identify in a hospital setting and to use this information to develop a patient measure of safety (PMOS). METHODS: Thirty-three qualitative interviews with a representative sample of patients from six units in a teaching hospital in the north of England were carried out. Patients were asked either to describe their most recent/current hospital experience (unstructured) or were asked to describe their experience in relation to specific contributory factors (structured). Responses were coded using the YCFF. Face validity of the PMOS was tested with 12 patients and 12 health professionals, using a 'think aloud' approach, and appropriate revisions made. The research was supported by two patient representatives. RESULTS: Patients were able to comment on/identify 13 of the 20 contributory factors contained within the YCFF domains. They identified contributory factors relating to communication and individual factors more frequently, and contributory factors relating to team factors, and support from central functions less frequently. In addition, they identified one theme not included in the YCFF: dignity and respect. The draft PMOS showed acceptable face validity. DISCUSSION: Patients are able to identify factors which contribute to the safety of their care. The PMOS provides a way of systematically assessing these and has the potential to help health professionals and healthcare organisations understand and identify, safety concerns from the patients' perspective, and, in doing so, make appropriate service improvements.

Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to develop a 'contributory factors framework' from a synthesis of empirical work which summarises factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings. DESIGN: A mixed-methods systematic review of the literature was conducted. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, ISI Web of knowledge, CINAHL and EMBASE), article reference lists, patient safety websites, registered study databases and author contacts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included that reported data from primary research in secondary care aiming to identify the contributory factors to error or threats to patient safety. RESULTS: 1502 potential articles were identified. 95 papers (representing 83 studies) which met the inclusion criteria were included, and 1676 contributory factors extracted. Initial coding of contributory factors by two independent reviewers resulted in 20 domains (eg, team factors, supervision and leadership). Each contributory factor was then coded by two reviewers to one of these 20 domains. The majority of studies identified active failures (errors and violations) as factors contributing to patient safety incidents. Individual factors, communication, and equipment and supplies were the other most frequently reported factors within the existing evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: This review has culminated in an empirically based framework of the factors contributing to patient safety incidents. This framework has the potential to be applied across hospital settings to improve the identification and prevention of factors that cause harm to patients.

Experience of wrong site surgery and surgical marking practices among clinicians in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incidence of "wrong site surgery", but the consequences of this type of medical error can be severe. Guidance from both the USA and more recently the UK has highlighted the importance of preventing error by marking patients before surgery. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences of wrong site surgery and current marking practices among clinicians in the UK before the release of a national Correct Site Surgery Alert. METHODS: 38 telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with consultant surgeons in ophthalmology, orthopaedics and urology in 14 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. The interviews were coded and analysed thematically using the software package QSR Nud*ist 6. RESULTS: Most surgeons had experience of wrong site surgery, but there was no clear pattern of underlying causes. Marking practices varied considerably. Surgeons were divided on the value of marking and varied in their practices. Orthopaedic surgeons reported that they marked before surgery; however, some urologists and ophthalmologists reported that they did not. There seemed to be no formal hospital policies in place specifically relating to wrong site surgery, and there were problems associated with implementing a system of marking in some cases. The methods used to mark patients also varied. Some surgeons believed that marking was a limited method of preventing wrong site surgery and may even increase the risk of wrong site surgery. CONCLUSION: Marking practices are variable and marking is not always used. Introducing standard guidance on marking may reduce the overall risk of wrong site surgery, especially as clinicians work at different hospital sites. However, the more specific needs of people and specialties must also be considered.