Rural general practice staff experiences of patient safety incidents and low quality of care in Norway: an interview study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: General practitioners (GPs), nurses and medical secretaries (practice staff) are responsible for the continuous provision of safe care in rural general practice. Little is known about their role in situations where patients were or could have been harmed in a rural setting. Therefore, we sought to investigate rural general practice staff experiences of patient safety incidents and low quality of care. METHODS: Descriptive qualitative interviews using the critical incident technique. Systematic text condensation analysis involving GPs and practice staff in eight rural municipalities in Norway. RESULTS: Sixteen participants (eight GPs, one nurse and seven medical secretaries) with mean work experience of 11.8 years were interviewed for a total of 11.5 hours. We identified three main factors that make rural GP clinics vulnerable to patient safety incidents and low quality of care: use of locums, work overload and rough weather and distance to hospital. There was a wide range of patient safety incidents. The healthcare personnel explained how they used local knowledge about people and context and greater awareness of risk of error in order to prevent these incidents from happening. CONCLUSION: Rural GP clinics that suffer from frequent use of GP locums and work overload are vulnerable to patient safety incidents. Practice staff use various forms of continuity of care to prevent safety incidents from happening; this highlights the strengths but also some major safety concerns in these GP clinics. Staff at these clinics proved to be a resource for patient safety research. PODCAST: An accompanying podcast on patient safety is available as Supplementary Data, in which Martin Bruusgaardf Harbitz and Per Stensland provide insights into the context of this study.

When we go to see the doctor, we all want our diagnosis and treatment to be safe and free from mistakes. Unfortunately, patient harm and low quality of care happen every day in medical practice. This article looks at staff experiences of these mistakes; the staff were general practitioners, nurses and medical secretaries. We show how the use of locum doctors, work overload and long distance to hospital are linked to examples of patient harm. Our findings also show how nurses and medical secretaries may help to prevent harm to patients.

Medical malpractice in Norway: frequency and distribution of disciplinary actions for medical doctors 2011-2018.

BACKGROUND: Physicians who perform unsafe practices and harm patients may be disciplined. In Norway, there are five types of disciplinary action, ranging from a warning for the least serious examples of malpractice to loss of licence for the most serious ones. Disciplinary actions always involve medical malpractice. The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency and distribution of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision for doctors in Norway and to uncover nation-wide patient safety issues. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated all 953 disciplinary actions for doctors given by the Board between 2011 and 2018. We categorized these according to type of action, recipient's profession, organizational factors and geographical location of the recipient. Frequencies, cross tables, rates and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Rural general practitioners received the most disciplinary actions of all doctors and had their licence revoked or restricted 2.1 times more frequently than urban general practitioners. General practitioners and private specialists received respectively 98.7 and 91.0 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Senior consultants and junior doctors working in hospitals received respectively 17.0 and 6.4 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Eight times more actions were received by primary care doctors than secondary care doctors. Doctors working in primary care were given a warning 10.6 times more often and had their licence revoked or restricted 4.6 times more often than those in secondary care. CONCLUSION: The distribution and frequency of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision clearly varied according to type of health care facility. Private specialists and general practitioners, especially those working in rural clinics, received the most disciplinary actions. These results deserve attention from health policy-makers and warrant further studies to determine the factors that influence medical malpractice. Moreover, the supervisory authorities should assess whether their procedures for reacting to malpractice are efficient and adequate for all types of physicians working in Norway.