Patient safety improvement programmes for primary care. Review of a Delphi procedure and pilot studies by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.

BACKGROUND: To improve patient safety it is necessary to identify the causes of patient safety incidents, devise solutions and measure the (cost-) effectiveness of improvement efforts. OBJECTIVE: This paper provides a broad overview with practical guidance on how to improve patient safety. METHODS: We used modified online Delphi procedures to reach consensus on methods to improve patient safety and to identify important features of patient safety management in primary care. Two pilot studies were carried out to assess the value of prospective risk analysis (PRA), as a means of identifying the causes of a patient safety incident. RESULTS: A range of different methods can be used to improve patient safety but they have to be contextually specific. Practice organization, culture, diagnostic errors and medication safety were found to be important domains for further improvement. Improvement strategies for patient safety could benefit from insights gained from research on implementation of evidence-based practice. Patient involvement and prospective risk analysis are two promising and innovative strategies for improving patient safety in primary care. CONCLUSION: A range of methods is available to improve patient safety, but there is no 'magic bullet.' Besides better use of the available methods, it is important to use new and potentially more effective strategies, such as prospective risk analysis.

A research agenda on patient safety in primary care. Recommendations by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare can cause avoidable serious harm to patients. Primary care is not an exception, and the relative lack of research in this area lends urgency to a better understanding of patient safety, the future research agenda and the development of primary care oriented safety programmes. OBJECTIVE: To outline a research agenda for patient safety improvement in primary care in Europe and beyond. METHODS: The LINNEAUS collaboration partners analysed existing research on epidemiology and classification of errors, diagnostic and medication errors, safety culture, and learning for and improving patient safety. We discussed ideas for future research in several meetings, workshops and congresses with LINNEAUS collaboration partners, practising GPs, researchers in this field, and policy makers. RESULTS: This paper summarizes and integrates the outcomes of the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care. It proposes a research agenda on improvement strategies for patient safety in primary care. In addition, it provides background information to help to connect research in this field with practicing GPs and other healthcare workers in primary care. CONCLUSION: Future research studies should target specific primary care domains, using prospective methods and innovative methods such as patient involvement.

Organisational targets of patient safety improvement programs in primary care; an international web-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Organisational problems contribute to many errors in healthcare delivery. Our objective was to identify the most important organisational items in primary care which could be targeted by programs to improve patient safety. METHODS: A web-based survey was undertaken in an international panel of 65 experts on patient safety from 20 countries. They were asked to rate 52 patient safety items on a five-point Likert scale which regards importance of each item for use for educational interventions to improve patient safety. RESULTS: The following 7 organizational items were regarded 'extremely important' by more than 50% of the experts: the use of sterile equipment with small surgical procedures (63%), the availability of adequate emergency drugs in stock (60%), regular cleaning of facilities (59%), the use of sterile surgical gloves when recommended (57%), the availability of at least one adequately trained staff member to deal with collapse and need for resuscitation (56%), adequate information handover when a patient is discharged from the hospital (56%) and periodically training of GPs in basic life support and other medical emergencies (53%). CONCLUSION: Seven organisational items were consistently prioritized; other items may be relevant in specific countries only. The logical next step is to develop and evaluate interventions targeted at these items.

Are health professionals' perceptions of patient safety related to figures on safety incidents?

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to explore whether health care professionals' perceptions of patient safety in their practice were associated with the number of patient safety incidents identified in patient records. SETTING: Seventy primary care practices of general practice, general dental practice, midwifery practices and allied health care practices were used in the study. METHODS: A retrospective audit of 50 patient records was performed to identify patient safety incidents in each of the practices and a survey among health professionals to identify their perceptions of patient safety. RESULTS: All health professions felt that 'communication breakdowns inside the practice' as well as 'communication breakdowns outside the practice' and 'reporting of patient safety concerns' were a threat to patient safety in their work setting. We found little association between the perceptions of health professionals and the number of safety incidents. The only item with a significant relation to a higher number of safety incidents referred to the perception of 'communication problems outside the practice' as a threat to patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the assessment of professionals' perceptions may be complementary to observed safety incidents, but not linked to an objective measure of patient safety.

Complaints against family physicians submitted to disciplinary tribunals in the Netherlands: lessons for patient safety.

PURPOSE We analyzed the disciplinary law verdicts concerning family physicians, submitted to the Dutch disciplinary law system, to identify domains of high risk of harm for patients in family practice. METHODS The Dutch disciplinary law system offers patients the opportunity to file complaints against physicians outside a legal malpractice system, without possibility of financial compensation in case of verdicts in which the physician was found to be at fault. We performed an analysis of 250 random disciplinary law verdicts on Dutch family physicians submitted to disciplinary tribunals and published between 2008 and 2010. Our analysis focused on clinical domains represented in the verdicts with serious permanent damage or death. RESULTS Of the 74 complaints with a serious health outcome, 44.6% (n = 33) were related to a wrong diagnosis, 23.0% (n = 17) to insufficient care, 8.1% (n = 6) to a wrong treatment, 8.1% (n = 6) to a late arrival at a house visit, 5.4% (n = 4) to a late referral to the hospital, and 1.4% (n = 1) to insufficient information given; 9.5% (n = 7) consisted of other complaints. The wrong or late diagnosis-related cases mostly consisted of myocardial infarction and stroke (35.1%) and malignancies (33.7%). The family physician was disciplined as a result of 37 of these 74 complaints (50%). Logistic regression analysis showed that a serious outcome was associated with a higher probability of disciplinary measures (B=0.703; P =.02) CONCLUSIONS The disciplinary law system in the Netherlands differs fundamentally from a legal malpractice system. It can be used to learn from patients' complaints with a view on improving patient safety.

Patient safety in primary allied health care: what can we learn from incidents in a Dutch exploratory cohort study?

BACKGROUND: Research on patient safety in allied healthcare is scarce. Our aim was to document patient safety in primary allied healthcare in the Netherlands and to identify factors associated with incidents. DESIGN AND SUBJECT: A retrospective study of 1000 patient records in a representative sample of 20 allied healthcare practices was combined with a prospective incident-reporting study. MEASURES: All records were reviewed by trained researchers to identify patient safety incidents. The incidents were classified and analyzed, using the Prevention and Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis method. Factors associated with incidents were examined in a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In 18 out of 1000 (1.8%; 95% confidence interval: 1.0-2.6) records an incident was detected. The main causes of incidents were related to errors in clinical decisions (89%), communication with other healthcare providers (67%), and monitoring (56%). The probability of incidents was higher if more care providers had been involved and if patient records were incomplete (37% of the records). No incidents were reported in the prospective study. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute number of incidents was low, which could imply a low risk of harm in Dutch primary allied healthcare. Nevertheless, incompleteness of the patient records and the fact that incidents were mainly caused through human actions suggest that a focus on clinical reasoning and record keeping is needed to further enhance patient safety. Improvements in record keeping will be necessary before accurate incident reporting will be feasible and valid.

What do primary care physicians and researchers consider the most important patient safety improvement strategies?

BACKGROUND: Although it has been increasingly recognised that patient safety in primary care is important, little is known about the feasibility and effectiveness of different strategies to improve patient safety in primary care. In this study, we aimed to identify the most important strategies by consulting an international panel of primary care physicians and researchers. METHODS: A web-based survey was undertaken in an international panel of 58 individuals from eight countries with a strong primary care system. The questionnaire consisted of 38 strategies to improve patient safety. We asked the respondents whether these strategies were currently used in their own country, and whether they felt them to be important. RESULTS: Most of the 38 presented strategies were seen as important by a majority of the participants, but the use of strategies in daily practice varied widely. Strategies that yielded the highest scores (>70%) regarding importance included a good medical record system (82% felt this was very important, while 83% said it was implemented in more than half of the practices), good telephone access (71% importance, 83% implementation), standards for record keeping (75% importance, 62% implementation), learning culture (74% importance, 10% implementation), vocational training on patient safety for GPs (81% importance, 24% implementation) and the presence of a patient safety guideline (81% importance, 15% implementation). CONCLUSION: An international panel of primary care physicians and researchers felt that many different strategies to improve patient safety were important. Highly important strategies with poor implementation included a culture that is positive for patient safety, education on patient safety for physicians, and the presence of a patient safety guideline.

Prevalence and consequences of patient safety incidents in general practice in the Netherlands: a retrospective medical record review study.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety can be at stake in both hospital and general practice settings. While severe patient safety incidents have been described, quantitative studies in large samples of patients in general practice are rare. This study aimed to assess patient safety in general practice, and to show areas where potential improvements could be implemented. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patient records in Dutch general practice. A random sample of 1,000 patients from 20 general practices was obtained. The number of patient safety incidents that occurred in a one-year period, their perceived underlying causes, and impact on patients' health were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 211 patient safety incidents across a period of one year (95% CI: 185 until 241). A variety of types of incidents, perceived causes and consequences were found. A total of 58 patient safety incidents affected patients; seven were associated with hospital admission; none resulted in permanent disability or death. CONCLUSIONS: Although this large audit of medical records in general practices identified many patient safety incidents, only a few had a major impact on patients' health. Improving patient safety in this low-risk environment poses specific challenges, given the high numbers of patients and contacts in general practice.

Patient safety in Dutch primary care: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Insight into the frequency and seriousness of potentially unsafe situations may be the first step towards improving patient safety. Most patient safety attention has been paid to patient safety in hospitals. However, in many countries, patients receive most of their healthcare in primary care settings. There is little concrete information about patient safety in primary care in the Netherlands. The overall aim of this study was to provide insight into the current patient safety issues in Dutch general practices, out-of-hours primary care centres, general dental practices, midwifery practices, and allied healthcare practices. The objectives of this study are: to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients; to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals; and to provide insight into patient safety management in primary care practices. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study consists of three parts: a retrospective patient record study of 1,000 records per practice type was conducted to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients (objective one); a prospective component concerns an incident-reporting study in each of the participating practices, during two successive weeks, to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals (objective two); to provide insight into patient safety management in Dutch primary care practices (objective three), we surveyed organizational and cultural items relating to patient safety. We analysed the incidents found in the retrospective patient record study and the prospective incident-reporting study by type of incident, causes (Eindhoven Classification Model), actual harm (severity-of-outcome domain of the International Taxonomy of Medical Errors in Primary Care), and probability of severe harm or death. DISCUSSION: To estimate the frequency of incidents was difficult. Much depended on the accuracy of the patient records and the professionals' consensus about which types of adverse events have to be recognized as incidents.

Patient safety in primary care has many aspects: an interview study in primary care doctors and nurses.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Scientific definitions of patient safety may be difficult to apply in routine health care delivery. It is unknown what primary care workers consider patient safety. This study aimed to clarify the concept of patient safety in primary care. METHODS: We held 29 semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of primary care doctors and nurses regarding their perceptions of patient safety. The answers were analysed in an iterative procedure with respect to common themes. RESULTS: A broad range of specific aspects of primary care were named in relation with patient safety. Medication safety was most frequently mentioned. Most items were categorized as organizational, while the remaining aspects were linked to culture or professionalism. Scientific definitions of patient safety were not mentioned, but some primary care workers gave 'do not harm the patient' as a short definition for patient safety. CONCLUSION: Patient safety programmes have mostly targeted specific issues, such as incident reporting and medication safety. However, doctors and practice nurses had a broad view of what constitutes patient safety in primary care. This has implications for the measurement and improvement of patient safety in primary care.

Patient safety features are more present in larger primary care practices.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore whether specific characteristics of a general practice organization were associated with aspects of patient safety management. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from 271 primary care practices, collected in 10 European countries. These data were collected by a practice visitor and physician questionnaires. For this study we constructed 10 measures of patient safety, covering 45 items as outcomes, and 6 measures of practice characteristics as possible predictors for patient safety. RESULTS: Eight of the 10 patient safety measures yielded higher scores in larger practices (practices with more than 2 general practitioners). Medication safety (B 0.64), practice building safety (B 0.49) and incident reporting items (B 0.47) showed the strongest associations with practice size. Also measures on hygiene (B 0.37), medical record keeping (B 0.30), quality improvement (B 0.28), professional competence (B 0.24) and organized patient feedback items (B 0.24) had higher scores in larger practices. CONCLUSION: Larger general practice practices may have better safety management, although through our measurements no causal relationship could be established in this study.

Patient safety in primary care: a survey of general practitioners in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Primary care encompasses many different clinical domains and patient groups, which means that patient safety in primary care may be equally broad. Previous research on safety in primary care has focused on medication safety and incident reporting. In this study, the views of general practitioners (GPs) on patient safety were examined. METHODS: A web-based survey of a sample of GPs was undertaken. The items were derived from aspects of patient safety issues identified in a prior interview study. The questionnaire used 10 clinical cases and 15 potential risk factors to explore GPs' views on patient safety. RESULTS: A total of 68 GPs responded (51.5% response rate). None of the clinical cases was uniformly judged as particularly safe or unsafe by the GPs. Cases judged to be unsafe by a majority of the GPs concerned either the maintenance of medical records or prescription and monitoring of medication. Cases which only a few GPs judged as unsafe concerned hygiene, the diagnostic process, prevention and communication. The risk factors most frequently judged to constitute a threat to patient safety were a poor doctor-patient relationship, insufficient continuing education on the part of the GP and a patient age over 75 years. Language barriers and polypharmacy also scored high. Deviation from evidence-based guidelines and patient privacy in the reception/waiting room were not perceived as risk factors by most of the GPs. CONCLUSION: The views of GPs on safety and risk in primary care did not completely match those presented in published papers and policy documents. The GPs in the present study judged a broader range of factors than in previously published research on patient safety in primary care, including a poor doctor-patient relationship, to pose a potential threat to patient safety. Other risk factors such as infection prevention, deviation from guidelines and incident reporting were judged to be less relevant than by policy makers.