Patients' and carers' perceptions of safety in rural general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and carers' experiences of rural general practice to identify their perceptions of safety of care. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Four focus group interviews were conducted with 26 rural patients and carers in south-west Victoria between September and December 2012. Frequent users of general practice were recruited from local allied health self-management programs and a mothers' group. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcripts were independently analysed and interpreted using narrative methodologies. RESULTS: Participants who had experienced some level of harm were able to comment more extensively on safety aspects of care. Several key themes related to safety were identified from the analysis of all participant narratives. An assumed sense of safety in general practice was predominant, and was influenced by participants' level of risk awareness and trust in their general practitioner. Additional unique themes included feelings of vulnerability, desire for an explanation and apology, a forgiving view of mistakes, and preference for GP interpersonal skills over competence. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed new insights into the factors that influence patients' and carers' perspectives of safety, and demonstrated the value of incorporating the patient voice into safety research. An assumed sense of safety due to a default position of trust, coupled with limited risk perception, directly contests the current literature on patient involvement in safety. Further exploration is required to determine how patients and carers can effectively engage in and assist with improving safety in general practice.

Surveyors' perceptions of the impact of accreditation on patient safety in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To explore Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited (AGPAL) surveyors' perceptions of the impact of accreditation on patient safety and to elicit suggestions for improving patient safety in Australian general practices. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive national sample of 10 AGPAL surveyors from 2 July to 14 December 2012. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and summarised. RESULTS: All participants agreed that accreditation has improved general practices' performance in quality and safety. Participants noted specific areas that need further attention, including sufficient evidence for clinical risk management, which half the participants estimated occurs in about 5%-10% of Australian general practices. Tangible evidence of patient safety activities included having a significant incidents register, providing documentation of near misses, slips, lapses or mistakes, and engaging in regular clinical meetings to discuss incidents and how to avoid them in the future. Participants agreed that the accreditation process could be improved through the inclusion of tighter clinical safety indicators and the requirement of verifiable evidence of a working clinical risk management system. CONCLUSIONS: Accreditation has had a positive role in improving quality and safety in general practice. The inclusion of tighter indicators that require verifiable evidence will be a step forward. The Australian Primary Care Collaboratives (APCC) Program has an opportunity to build on its previous success in general practice quality improvement to further enhance patient safety in general practice.

General practices' perspectives on Medicare Locals' performance are critical lessons for the success of Primary Health Networks.

BACKGROUND: Under a health reform after two decades, Primary Health Organisations (PHOs) in Australia were changed from Divisions of General Practice (DGP) to Medicare Locals (MLs). Following a review of Medicare Locals, in July 2015 Primary Health Networks (PHNs) replaced Medical Locals to potentially improve outcomes through supporting primary care and enhancing integration. AIMS: The aim of this paper was to gather front-line staff's perspectives on MLs and identify any lessons applicable to PHNs. METHODS: A national purposive sample of 22 high-performing general practices representing all Australian states and territories was selected for semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, and a thematic analysis conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-three interviews were conducted: participants comprised 19 general practitioners (GPs), 18 practice managers (PMs), 15 practices nurses (PNs), and one community pharmacist. Most participants reflected on the difference between the DGP and MLs. Themes that emerged included ambiguity, community needs, professional development and education, communication and support, duplication in services and ignoring existing ones, recruitment and retention, and engagement and involvement. CONCLUSION: Those MLs that did well continued in an expanded way the work DGP were doing beforehand and made a seamless transition. PHNs will need to build on the strengths of previous PHOs, and create locality structures and processes that maximise the potential for clinical engagement. They will actively guide the dialogue between related microsystems: to achieve this they will have to be clinically led, change management organisations.