Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.

BACKGROUND: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. METHODS: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. RESULTS: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. CONCLUSION: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Identifying benefits and concerns with using digital health services during COVID-19: Evidence from a hospital-based patient survey.

Despite large-scale adoption during COVID-19, patient perceptions on the benefits and potential risks with receiving care through digital technologies have remained largely unexplored. A quantitative content analysis of responses to a questionnaire (N = 6766) conducted at a multi-site acute trust in London (UK), was adopted to identify commonly reported benefits and concerns. Patients reported a range of promising benefits beyond immediate usage during COVID-19, including ease of access; support for disease and care management; improved timeliness of access and treatment; and better prioritisation of healthcare resources. However, in addition to known risks such as data security and inequity in access, our findings also illuminate some less studied concerns, including perceptions of compromised safety; negative impacts on patient-clinician relationships; and difficulties in interpreting health information provided through electronic health records and mHealth apps. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Getting the whole story: Integrating patient complaints and staff reports of unsafe care.

OBJECTIVE: It is increasingly recognized that patient safety requires heterogeneous insights from a range of stakeholders, yet incident reporting systems in health care still primarily rely on staff perspectives. This paper examines the potential of combining insights from patient complaints and staff incident reports for a more comprehensive understanding of the causes and severity of harm. METHODS: Using five years of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data at a large multi-site hospital in London (in the United Kingdom), this study conducted retrospective patient-level data linkage to identify overlapping reports. Using a combination of quantitative coding and in-depth qualitative analysis, we then compared level of harm reported, identified descriptions of adjacent events missed by the other party and examined combined narratives of mutually identified events. RESULTS: Incidents where complaints and incident reports overlapped (n = 446, reported in 7.6%' of all complaints and 0.6% of all incident reports) represented a small but critical area of investigation, with significantly higher rates of Serious Incidents and severe harm. Linked complaints described greater harm from safety incidents in 60% of cases, reported many surrounding safety events missed by staff (n = 582), and provided contesting stories of why problems occurred in 46% cases, and complementary accounts in 26% cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the value of using patient complaints to supplement, test, and challenge staff reports, including to provide greater insight on the many potential factors that may give rise to unsafe care. Accordingly, we propose that a more holistic analysis of critical safety incidents can be achieved through combining heterogeneous data from different viewpoints, such as through the integration of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data.

Use and impact of virtual primary care on quality and safety: The public's perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: With the onset of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), primary care has swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to virtual care, yet it remains largely unknown how this has impacted the quality and safety of care. We aim to evaluate patient use of virtual primary care models during COVID-19, including change in uptake, perceived impact on the quality and safety of care and willingness of future use. METHODOLOGY: An online cross-sectional survey was administered to the public across the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Germany. McNemar tests were conducted to test pre- and post-pandemic differences in uptake for each technology. One-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine patient experience ratings and perceived impacts on healthcare quality and safety across demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 6326) reported an increased use of telephone consultations ( + 6.3%, p < .001), patient-initiated services ( + 1.5%, n = 98, p < 0.001), video consultations ( + 1.4%, p < .001), remote triage ( + 1.3, p < 0.001) and secure messaging systems ( + 0.9%, p = .019). Experience rates using virtual care technologies were higher for men (2.4 ± 1.0 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p < .001), those with higher literacy (2.8 ± 1.0 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p < .001), and participants from Germany (2.5 ± 0.9, p < .001). Healthcare timeliness and efficiency were the dimensions most often reported as being positively impacted by virtual technologies (60.2%, n = 2793 and 55.7%, n = 2,401, respectively), followed by effectiveness (46.5%, n = 1802), safety (45.5%, n = 1822), patient-centredness (45.2%, n = 45.2) and equity (42.9%, n = 1726). Interest in future use was highest for telephone consultations (55.9%), patient-initiated digital services (56.1%), secure messaging systems (43.4%), online triage (35.1%), video consultations (37.0%) and chat consultations (30.1%), although significant variation was observed between countries and patient characteristics. DISCUSSION: Future work must examine the drivers and determinants of positive experiences using remote care to co-create a supportive environment that ensures equitable adoption and use. Comparative analysis between countries and health systems offers the opportunity for policymakers to learn from best practices internationally.

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights.

INTRODUCTION: A global rise in patient complaints has been accompanied by growing research to effectively analyse complaints for safer, more patient-centric care. Most patients and families complain to improve the quality of healthcare, yet progress has been complicated by a system primarily designed for case-by-case complaint handling. AIM: To understand how to effectively integrate patient-centric complaint handling with quality monitoring and improvement. METHOD: Literature screening and patient codesign shaped the review's aim in the first stage of this three-stage review. Ten sources were searched including academic databases and policy archives. In the second stage, 13 front-line experts were interviewed to develop initial practice-based programme theory. In the third stage, evidence identified in the first stage was appraised based on rigour and relevance, and selected to refine programme theory focusing on what works, why and under what circumstances. RESULTS: A total of 74 academic and 10 policy sources were included. The review identified 12 mechanisms to achieve: patient-centric complaint handling and system-wide quality improvement. The complaint handling pathway includes (1) access of information; (2) collaboration with support and advocacy services; (3) staff attitude and signposting; (4) bespoke responding; and (5) public accountability. The improvement pathway includes (6) a reliable coding taxonomy; (7) standardised training and guidelines; (8) a centralised informatics system; (9) appropriate data sampling; (10) mixed-methods spotlight analysis; (11) board priorities and leadership; and (12) just culture. DISCUSSION: If healthcare settings are better supported to report, analyse and use complaints data in a standardised manner, complaints could impact on care quality in important ways. This review has established a range of evidence-based, short-term recommendations to achieve this.