Identifying Factors that Support the Delivery of Exceptional Care in General Practice and Development of the IDEAL Framework: A Qualitative Study.

The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from those that perform exceptionally well. Positive deviance as an approach to quality improvement is gaining traction in general practice. This study aimed to explore and compare stakeholders' perceptions of the factors that support the delivery of exceptional care in general practice and to refine a previously developed theoretical framework of factors associated with positively deviant care in general practice: the Identifying and Disseminating the Exceptional to Achieve Learning (IDEAL) framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 purposively sampled patients, general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers in Irish general practice. Subsequently, a directed content analysis approach was employed to deductively analyse interview data using the IDEAL framework, and newly emerging factors were inductively analysed and abstracted into the framework. Several distinct strategies (e.g. patient activation and team collaboration), structures (e.g. facilities and staffing), and contextual factors (e.g. communication and rapport, and culture) were found to support the delivery of exceptional care, and differences in perceptions, values, and expectations emerged between patients and practice staff. Interview data largely supported the pre-determined factors posited by the IDEAL framework, and new factors were abstracted into the framework (e.g. facilities and infrastructure). Stakeholder engagement regarding the factors supporting exceptional care in general practice supported and extended the IDEAL framework, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of how exceptional care is delivered in general practice. The refined framework will support researchers, policymakers, and teams looking to support, measure, and achieve exceptionally good patient care in general practice.

A systematic review of the use of positive deviance approaches in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Positive Deviance (PD) approach focuses on identifying and learning from those who demonstrate exceptional performance despite facing similar resource constraints to others. Recently, it has been embraced to improve the quality of patient care in a variety of healthcare domains. PD may offer one means of enacting effective quality improvement in primary care. OBJECTIVE(S): This review aimed to synthesize the extant research on applications of the PD approach in primary care. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched; MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Web of Science. Studies reporting original data on applications of the PD approach, as described by the PD framework, in primary care were included, and data extracted. Thematic analysis was used to classify positively deviant factors and to develop a conceptual framework. Methodological quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS). RESULTS: In total, 27 studies were included in the review. Studies most frequently addressed Stages 1 and 2 of the PD framework, and targeted 5 core features of primary care; effectiveness, chronic disease management, preventative care, prescribing behaviour, and health promotion. In total, 268 factors characteristic of exceptional care were identified and synthesized into a framework of 37 themes across 7 system levels. CONCLUSION: Several useful factors associated with exceptional care were described in the literature. The proposed framework has implications for understanding and disseminating best care practice in primary care. Further refinement of the framework is required before its widespread recommendation.

The positive deviance approach is focused on identifying people/organizations performing particularly well, in spite of having similar challenges and resources to others, and learning about how they work so well. Recently, this approach has been used in healthcare to learn about how to improve the quality and safety of care for patients. This review aims to explore how the positive deviance approach has been used in primary care settings and to summarize the findings from this research. Overall, 27 studies were included in the review. We found that studies typically focused on identifying positive deviants (i.e. those performing particularly well) and finding out what helps them do that, without looking to see if these same practices work elsewhere or teaching others about them. The positive deviance approach was used to improve several different parts of primary care including; care effectiveness, management of chronic diseases, preventative care, prescribing, and health promotion. Several success strategies were identified from the studies' findings and were organized into a framework describing what practices contribute to particularly good performance in primary care. This framework will be useful for those looking to improve quality of care in primary care.

The patient's "story": an examination of patient-reported safety incidents in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incidents (PSIs) are typically studied through engagement with healthcare providers, without input from patients despite their privileged viewpoint of care experiences. OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential of the patient viewpoint as a lens for future safety improvement initiatives, by: (i) collecting and analysing patients' accounts of PSIs; and (ii) comparing patient and clinician perceptions of PSIs. METHODS: Firstly, Critical Incident Technique (CIT) interviews were used to obtain rich descriptions of PSIs, which were then condensed into patient stories. Deductive content analysis was used to code the safety deficiencies described in patient stories using patient-derived safety categories. Secondly, General Practitioners (GPs) and patients individually rated the perceived severity and likelihood of each story. RESULTS: A total of 32 eligible patient stories were obtained from 25 interviews. Stories commonly described deficiencies related to communication, staff performance, and compassion/dignity/respect. There were significant differences in GP (n = 14) and patient (n = 11) severity and likelihood ratings. GPs were significantly more likely to consider stories to be a lower severity, and occurring with a lower frequency than patients. CONCLUSION: Elicitation of the patient perspective using the CIT allowed for the rich description of safety deficiencies that occur in general practice. Given that patients bring a unique and important viewpoint on safety, there is a need to make greater efforts to include the patient perspective of safety in healthcare.

Identifying hot spots for harm and blind spots across the care pathway from patient complaints about general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare complaints are underutilized for quality improvement in general practice. Systematic analysis of complaints has identified hot spots (areas across the care pathway where issues occur frequently) and blind spots (areas across the care pathway that cannot be observed by staff) in secondary care. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) has been adapted to the HCAT(GP). AIMS: This study aimed to: (i) assess whether the HCAT(GP) can systematically analyze complaints about general practice; and (ii) identify hot spots and blind spots in general practice. METHODS: GP complaints were sampled. Complaints were coded with the HCAT(GP), classified by HCAT(GP) category (e.g. Safety, Environment, Listening), stage of care (e.g. accessing care, referral/follow-up), severity (e.g. low, medium, high), and harm (e.g. none, major). Descriptive statistics were run to identify discrete issues. A chi-square test of independence identified hot spots, and logistic regression was used for blind spots. RESULTS: A total of 230 complaints, encompassing 432 issues (i.e. unique problems within complaints), were categorized. Relationship issues (e.g. problems with listening, communication, and patient rights) emerged most frequently (n = 174, 40%). Hot spots were identified in the consultation and the referral/follow-up stages (χ 2(5, n = 432) = 17.931, P < 0.05). A blind spot for multiple issues was identified, with the likelihood of harm increasing with number of issues (odds ratio = 2.02, confidence interval = 1.27-3.23, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Complaints are valuable data for improving general practice. This study demonstrated that the HCAT(GP) can support the systematic analysis of general practice complaints, and identify hot spots and blind spots in care.

Systematic review of interventions to improve gender equity in graduate medicine.

Women are substantially underrepresented in senior and leadership positions in medicine and experience gendered challenges in their work settings. This systematic review aimed to synthesise research that has evaluated interventions for improving gender equity in medicine. English language electronic searches were conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Reference list screening was also undertaken. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and March 2020 that evaluated interventions to improve gender equity, or the experiences of women, in academic or clinical medicine were reviewed. Dual reviewer data extraction on setting, participants, type of intervention, measurement and outcomes was completed. Methodological rigour and strength of findings were evaluated. In total, 34 studies were included. Interventions were typically focused on equipping the woman (82.4%), that is, delivering professional development activities for women. Fewer focused on changing cultures (20.6%), ensuring equal opportunities (23.5%) or increasing the visibility or valuing of women (23.5%). Outcomes were largely positive (87.3%) but measurement typically relied on subjective, self-report data (69.1%). Few interventions were implemented in clinical settings (17.6%). Weak methodological rigour and a low strength of findings was observed. There has been a focus to-date on interventions which Equip the Woman Interventions addressing systems and culture change require further research consideration. However, institutions cannot wait on high quality research evidence to emerge to take action on gender equity. Data collated suggest a number of recommendations pertaining to research on, and the implementation of, interventions to improve gender equity in academic and clinical settings.

An analysis of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Patients and family members make complaints about their hospital care in order to express their dissatisfaction with the care received and prompt quality improvement. Increasingly, it is being understood that these complaints could serve as important data on how to improve care if analysed using a standardized tool. The use of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for this purpose has emerged internationally for quality and safety improvement. Previous work has identified hot spots (areas in care where harm occurs frequently) and blind spots (areas in care that are difficult for staff members to observe) from complaints analysis. This study aimed to (i) apply the HCAT to a sample of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) to identify hot spots and blind spots in care and (ii) compare the findings of this analysis to a previously published study on hospital complaints in the UK. METHODS: A sample of complaints was taken from 16 hospitals in the RoI in Quarter 4 of 2019 (n = 641). These complaints were coded using the HCAT to classify complaints by domain, category, severity, stage of care and harm. Chi-squared tests were used to identify hot spots, and logistic regression was used to identify blind spots. The findings of this study were compared to a previously published UK study that used HCAT to identify hot spots and blind spots. RESULTS: Hot spots were identified in Irish hospital complaints while patients were receiving care on the ward, during initial examination and diagnosis, and while they were undergoing operations or procedures. This aligned with hot spots identified in the UK study. Blind spots were found for systemic problems, where patients experience multiple issues across their care. CONCLUSIONS: Hot spots and blind spots for patient harm can be identified in hospital care using the HCAT analysis. These in turn could be used to inform improvement interventions, and direct stakeholders to areas that require urgent attention. This study also highlights the promise of the HCAT for use across different healthcare systems, with similar results emerging from the RoI and the UK.

The adaptation of the 'Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool' for general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient complaints about care in general practice are underutilized as a source of safety improvement data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to adapt a secondary care complaints analysis tool for use in general practice contexts and assess the validity, reliability and usability of the adapted tool. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase A: The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) designed for use in secondary care was adapted for use in general practice using an iterative six-stage process. Phase B: Participants from key stakeholder groups [General practitioners (n = 5), complaints managers (n = 9), health service researchers (n = 4)]. Participants completed an online survey and analysed 20 fictionalized patient complaints using the adapted tool. Inter-rater reliability and agreement with a referent standard were analysed using Gwet's AC1 statistic. RESULTS: Phase A: The HCAT was adapted to the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (General Practice) [HCAT(GP)]. The HCAT(GP) tool consists of three domains (clinical, management and relationship problems), and seven categories. The HCAT(GP) had both content and face validity. Phase B: Inter-rater reliability was substantial for the HCAT(GP) categories (Gwet's AC1 = 0.65). Within-group agreement on the seven HCAT(GP) categories was substantial to perfect (AC1 0.61-0.85). Participants had substantial to perfect agreement with the referent standard across the survey with a mean AC1 of 0.899 (Range 0.76-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the adaptation of the HCAT(GP) and has established that the tool has sufficient validity, reliability and usability. This adapted tool can be applied to general practice complaints to identify areas for improvement.

Development and validation of a patient-report measure of safety climate for general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients remain an under-utilized source of information on patient safety, as reflected by the dearth of patient-report measures of safety climate, particularly for use in general practice settings. Extant measures are marked by poor coverage of safety climate domains, inadequate psychometric properties and/or lack of consideration of usability. OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel patient-report measure of safety climate specifically for completion by general practice patients, and to establish the validity, reliability and usability of this measure. METHODS: An iterative process was used to develop the safety climate measure, with patient and general practitioner input. A cross-sectional design was employed to examine the validity (content, construct and convergent), reliability (internal consistency), and usability (readability and burden) of the measure. RESULTS: A total of 584 general practice patients completed the measure. The exploratory factor analysis identified five factors pertaining to safety climate in general practice: Feeling of Safety with GP; Practice Staff Efficiency and Teamwork; Staff Stress and Workload; Patient Knowledge and Accountability, and; Safety Systems and Behaviours. These factors strongly correlated with two global safety measures, demonstrating convergent validity. The measure showed strong internal consistency, and was considered usable for patients as indicated by readability and duration of completion. CONCLUSION: Our novel measure of safety climate for use in general practice demonstrates favourable markers of validity, reliability and usability. This measure will provide a mechanism for the patient voice to be heard in patient safety measurement, and to be used to improve patient safety in general practice.

Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review.

CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.

Measuring and monitoring patient safety in hospitals in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: There is much variability in the measurement and monitoring of patient safety across healthcare organizations. With no recognized standardized approach, this study examines how the key components outlined in Vincent et al's Measuring and Monitoring Safety (MMS) framework can be utilized to critically appraise a healthcare safety surveillance system. The aim of this study is to use the MMS framework to evaluate the Saudi Arabian healthcare safety surveillance system for hospital care. METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of two distinct phases. The first phase used document analysis to review national-level guidance relevant to measuring and monitoring safety in Saudi Arabia. The second phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders between May and August 2020 via a video conference call and focused on exploring their knowledge of how patient safety is measured and monitored in hospitals. The MMS framework was used to support data analysis. RESULTS: Three documents were included for analysis and 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders working in the Saudi Arabian healthcare system. A total of 39 unique methods of MMS were identified, with one method of MMS addressing two dimensions. Of these MMS methods: 10 (25 %) were concerned with past harm; 14 (35 %) were concerned with the reliability of safety critical processes, 3 (7.5 %) were concerned with sensitivity to operations, 2 (5 %) were concerned with anticipation and preparedness, and 11 (27.5 %) were concerned with integration and learning. CONCLUSIONS: The document analysis and interviews show an extensive system of MMS is in place in Saudi Arabian hospitals. The assessment of MMS offers a useful framework to help healthcare organizations and researchers to think critically about MMS, and how the data from different methods of MMS can be integrated in individual countries or health systems.

Development and preliminary evaluation of a novel physician-report tool for assessing barriers to providing care to autistic patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals on the autism spectrum face significant disparities in health and physicians often report difficulties in providing care to autistic patients. In order to improve the quality of care autistic individuals receive, it is important to identify the barriers that physicians experience in providing care so that these may be addressed. This paper reports the initial development and preliminary evaluation of a physician-report 'Barriers to Providing Healthcare' measurement tool. METHOD: An established taxonomy of healthcare barriers for autistic individuals informed the initial draft of a 22-item measurement tool. This measurement tool was distributed to physicians working in various healthcare specialties and settings. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the construct validity of the tool; discriminant validity between, and internal consistency of, the resultant factors were assessed. Multiple regressions were used to explore variables potentially associated with barriers endorsed by physicians. RESULTS: A total of 203 physicians were included in the analyses. The EFA resulted in a 17-item tool with three distinct factors which explained 37.6% of the variance: 1) Patient-related barriers (Cronbach's α = 0.83; e.g., the patient's reactivity to the healthcare environment); 2) Healthcare provider (HCP)/family-related barriers (Cronbach's α = 0.81; e.g., a lack of providers willing to work with autistic patients); and 3) System-related barriers (Cronbach's α = 0.84; e.g., there is a lack of support for patients and families). Discriminant validity between the factors was adequate (r < .8). The barriers that were most frequently endorsed as occurring 'often' or 'very often' included a lack of support for patients and families (endorsed by 79.9% of physicians); communication difficulties (73.4%); and a lack of coordination between services (69.9%). The regression analyses identified no significant associated variables. CONCLUSION: A preliminary version of a novel physician-report tool to assess barriers to providing care to autistic patients has been developed although further validation work is required. The use of this tool will help physicians to identify issues specific to different medical specialities and healthcare settings. This information may help identify the supports physicians require to recognise and implement the required accommodations. Future research which elucidates barriers to healthcare provision for autistic patients is required to support systemic change in healthcare so as to improve care experiences and health outcomes for people on the autism spectrum.

How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As compared to other domains of healthcare, little is known about patient safety incidents (PSIs) in prehospital care. The aims of our systematic review were to identify how the prevalence and level of harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care are assessed; the frequency of PSIs in prehospital care; and the harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care. METHOD: Searches were conducted of Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete and the grey literature. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies reporting data on number/frequency of PSIs and/or harm associated with PSIs were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from the studies and carried out a critical appraisal using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: Of the 22 included papers, 16 (73%) used data from record reviews, and 6 (27%) from incident reports. The frequency of PSIs in prehospital care was found to be a median of 5.9 per 100 records/transports/patients. A higher prevalence of PSIs was identified within studies that used record review data (9.9 per 100 records/transports/patients) as compared to incident reports (0.3 per records/transports/patients). Across the studies that reported harm, a median of 15.6% of PSIs were found to result in harm. Studies that utilized record review data reported that a median of 6.5% of the PSIs resulted in harm. For data from incident reporting systems, a median of 54.6% of incidents were associated with harm. The mean QATSDD score was 25.6 (SD = 4.1, range = 16-34). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review gives direction as to how to advance methods for identifying PSIs in prehospital care and assessing the extent to which patients are harmed.

A meta-review of methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care.

BACKGROUND: A major barrier to safety improvement in primary care is a lack of safety data. The aims of this systematic meta-review (registration: CRD42021224367) were to identify systematic reviews of studies that examine methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care; classify the methods of measuring and monitoring safety in the included systematic reviews using the five safety domains of Vincent et al.'s framework and use this information to make recommendations for improving the measurement and monitoring of safety in primary care. METHODS: Four databases (Medline, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science and CINAHL) and the grey literature were screened in November 2020, with searches updated in January 2021. Systematic reviews were included if they addressed the measurement of patient safety in primary care and were published in English. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews. RESULTS: A total of 6904 papers were screened, with 13 systematic reviews included. A commonly reported method of measuring 'past harm' was through patient record review. The most frequent methods for assessing the 'reliability of safety critical processes' were checklists, observations and surveys of staff. Methods used to assess 'sensitivity to operations' included observation, staff surveys, interviews, focus groups, active monitoring and simulated patients. Safety climate surveys were a commonly used as an approach to assess 'anticipation and preparedness'. A number of the reviews concluded that safety data could, and should, be used for 'integration and learning'. The main limitation of the meta-review was that it was of systematic reviews only. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the methods for measuring and monitoring safety are readily available, quick to administer, do not require external involvement and are inexpensive. However, there is still a need to improve the psychometric properties of many measures. Researchers must support the development of psychometrically sound safety measures that do not over burden primary care practitioners. Policymakers must consider how primary care practitioners can be supported to implement these measures.

Measurement and monitoring patient safety in prehospital care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care is potentially hazardous with the possibility for patients to experience an adverse event. However, as compared to secondary care, little is known about how patient safety is managed in prehospital care settings. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify and classify the methods of measuring and monitoring patient safety that have been used in prehospital care using the five dimensions of the Measuring and Monitoring Safety (MMS) framework and use this classification to identify where there are safety 'blind spots' and make recommendations for how these deficits could be addressed. METHODS: Searches were conducted in January 2020, with no limit on publication year, using Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science and Academic Search. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from studies and applied a quality appraisal tool (the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs). RESULTS: A total of 5301 studies were screened, with 52 included in the review. A total of 73% (38/52) of the studies assessed past harm, 25% (13/52) the reliability of safety critical processes, 1.9% (1/52) sensitivity to operations, 38.5% (20/52) anticipation and preparedness and 5.8% (3/52) integration and learning. A total of 67 methods for measuring and monitoring safety were used across the included studies. Of these methods, 38.8% (26/67) were surveys, 29.9% (20/67) were patient records reviews, 14.9% (10/67) were incident reporting systems, 11.9% (8/67) were interviews or focus groups and 4.5% (3/67) were checklists. CONCLUSIONS: There is no single method of measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care. Arguably, most safety monitoring systems have evolved, rather than been designed. This leads to safety blind spots in which information is lacking, as well as to redundancy and duplication of effort. It is suggested that the findings from this systematic review, informed by the MMS framework, can provide a structure for critically thinking about how safety is being measured and monitored in prehospital care. This will support the design of a safety surveillance system that provides a comprehensive understanding of what is being done well, where improvements should be made and whether safety interventions have had the desired effect.

Patients' perception of safety climate in Irish general practice: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although patients have the potential to provide important information on patient safety, considerably fewer patient-report measures of safety climate (SC) have been applied in the primary care setting as compared to secondary care. Our aim was to examine the application of a patient-report measure of safety climate in an Irish population to understand patient perceptions of safety in general practice and identify potential areas for improvement. Specifically, our research questions were: 1. What are patients' perceptions of SC in Irish general practice? 2. Do patient risk factors impact perceptions of SC? 3. Do patient responses to an open-ended question about safety enhance our understanding of patient safety beyond that obtained from a quantitative measure of SC? METHODS: The Patient Perspective of Safety in General Practice (PPS-GP) survey was distributed to primary care patients in Ireland. The survey consisted of both Likert-response items, and free-text entry questions in relation to the safety of care. A series of five separate hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relationship between a range of patient-related variables and each of the survey subscales. A deductive content analysis approach was used to code the free-text responses. RESULTS: A total of 584 completed online and paper surveys were received. Respondents generally had positive perceptions of safety across all five SC subscales of the PPS-GP. Regarding patient risk factors, younger age and being of non-Irish nationality were consistently associated with more negative SC perceptions. Analysis of the free-text responses revealed considerably poorer patient perceptions (n = 85, 65.4%) of the safety experience in primary care. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that despite being under-utilised, patients' perceptions are a valuable source of information for measuring SC, with promising implications for safety improvement in general practice. Further consideration should be given to how best to utilise this data in order to improve safety in primary care.

A randomised controlled trial of SAFMEDS to improve musculoskeletal radiology interpretation.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the impact of a Say-All-Fast-Minute-Everyday-Shuffled (SAFMEDS) intervention on musculoskeletal radiology interpretation ability. It addressed two research questions: 1) what degree of performance improvement in musculoskeletal radiology interpretation does SAFMEDS engender beyond usual teaching? and; 2) does the degree of improvement differ for participants who achieve behavioural fluency and those who do not? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a pragmatic randomised controlled trial design. Third-year medical students were randomised to either an intervention group (n = 22), who received SAFMEDS and usual teaching, or a control group (n = 20), who received usual teaching only. Eleven participants (5 intervention group, 6 control group) did not complete participation. RESULTS: A large effect size of the SAFMEDS intervention was identified (partial η2 = 0.672; M = 38.5 min practice). When controlling for baseline performance, intervention group participants' performance on the post-test was significantly higher (M = 77.4%) than that of control group participants (M = 49.6%). Intervention group participants who achieved fluency performed significantly better at post-test (M = 82.4%) than intervention group participants who did not (M = 72.9%). CONCLUSIONS: SAFMEDS constitutes a powerful adjunct to usual teaching that produces significant improvement with a short duration of engagement, particularly when students achieve fluency in the target behaviour. Future research should consider the application of SAFMEDS, and other fluency training interventions, more widely within musculoskeletal education and orthopaedic surgery training.

A systematic review of patient complaints about general practice.

BACKGROUND: Health care complaints are an underutilized resource for quality and safety improvement. Most research on health care complaints is focused on secondary care. However, there is also a need to consider patient safety in general practice, and complaints could inform quality and safety improvement. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to synthesize the extant research on complaints in general practice. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Academic Search Complete. Peer-reviewed studies describing the content, impact of and motivation for complaints were included and data extracted. Framework synthesis was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) as an organizing framework. Methodological quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: The search identified 2960 records, with 21 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was found to be variable. The contents of complaints were classified using the HCAT, with 126 complaints (54%) classified in the Clinical domain, 55 (23%) classified as Management and 54 (23%) classified as Relationships. Motivations identified for making complaints included quality improvement for other patients and monetary compensation. Complaints had both positive and negative impacts on individuals and systems involved. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted the high proportion of clinical complaints in general practice compared to secondary care, patients' motivations for making complaints and the positive and negative impacts that complaints can have on health care systems. Future research focused on the reliable coding of complaints and their use to improve quality and safety in general practice is required.

Understanding hand hygiene behaviour in the intensive care unit to inform interventions: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Improving hand hygiene (HH) compliance is one of the most important, but elusive, goals of infection control. The purpose of this study was to use the capability (C), opportunity (O), motivation (M), and behaviour (B; COM-B) model and the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to gain an understanding of the barriers and enablers of HH behaviours in an intensive care unit (ICU) in order to identify specific interventions to improve HH compliance. METHODS: A semi-structured interview schedule was developed based upon the COM-B model. This schedule was used to interview a total of 26 ICU staff: 12 ICU nurses, 11 anaesthetic specialist registrars, and three anaesthetic senior house officers. RESULTS: Participants were confident in their capabilities to carry out appropriate HH behaviours. The vast majority of participants reported having the necessary knowledge and skills, and believed they were capable of carrying out appropriate HH behaviours. Social influence was regarded as being important in encouraging HH compliance by the interviewees- particularly by nurses. The participants were motivated to carry out HH behaviours, and it was recognised that HH was an important part of their job and is important in preventing infection. It is recommended that staff are provided with targeted HH training, in which individuals receive direct and individualised feedback on actual performance and are provided guidance on how to address deficiencies in HH compliance at the bedside at the time at which the HH behaviour is performed. Modelling of appropriate HH behaviours by senior leaders is also suggested, particularly by senior doctors. Finally, appropriate levels of staffing are a factor that must be considered if HH compliance is to be improved. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that short interviews with ICU staff, founded on appropriate behavioural change frameworks, can provide an understanding of HH behaviour. This understanding can then be applied to design interventions appropriately tailored to the needs of a specific unit, which will have an increased likelihood of improving HH compliance.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of SAFMEDS to produce fluency in interpretation of electrocardiograms.

BACKGROUND: SAFMEDS (Say-All-Fast-Minute-Every-Day-Shuffled) is a flashcard-type behavioural instructional methodology, involving one-minute learning trials that function both as practice and assessment, used to facilitate the development of fluency in a behaviour. The primary research question was whether SAFMEDS engenders improvement in performance beyond that conferred by usual teaching. A secondary research question was whether SAFMEDS is an effective method of producing fluency in Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation. METHODS: A pilot study was conducted to determine sample size required to power the pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT). For the subsequent RCT, participants were randomly assigned to a "usual teaching" control group (n = 14) or the SAFMEDS intervention group (n = 13), with the recognition of 15 cardiac conditions on ECGs (e.g., atrial fibrillation, complete heart block) targeted. Intervention group participants' performance was tracked over eight weeks as they worked towards achieving the fluency criterion. Percentage accuracy in ECG interpretation was assessed at baseline and post-test for both groups. An ANCOVA was conducted to assess for differences in the performance of the intervention and control group at post-test while controlling for the baseline performance of participants. At post-test, the numbers of participants achieving fluency within the intervention group was examined. RESULTS: A large effect size of SAFMEDS (partial η2 = .67) was identified when controlling for the effects of baseline performance. At post-test, the intervention group significantly outperformed (M = 61.5%; SD = 12.1%) the control group (M = 31.6%; SD = 12.5%, p < .001). In total, 7 of 13 intervention group participants achieved fluency. Participants required an average of 51.9 one-minute trials (SD = 18.8) to achieve fluency. CONCLUSIONS: SAFMEDS offers a useful adjunct to usual teaching within medical education. Further research could assess whether learning retains, is stable, and transfers to clinical practice.

The development of a framework of entrustable professional activities for the intern year in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are units of professional practice that capture essential competencies in which trainees must become proficient before undertaking them independently. EPAs provide supervisors with a solid justification for delegating an activity to trainees. This study aimed to develop and ensure face validity of a set of EPAs for junior doctors in the first year of clinical practice in the Republic of Ireland. METHODS: An iterative eight stage consensus building process was used to develop the set of EPAs. This process was based on international best practice recommendations for EPA development. A series of surveys and workshops with stakeholders was used to develop a framework of EPAs and associated competencies. An external stakeholder consultation survey was then conducted by the Irish Medical Council. The framework of EPAs was then benchmarked against the 13 core EPAs developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). RESULTS: A framework of seven EPAs, and associated competencies resulted from this study. These EPAs address all core activities that junior doctors should be readily entrusted with at the end of the intern year, which is the first year of clinical practice in the Republic of Ireland. Each EPA contains a series of defined competencies. The final EPAs were found to be comparable to the AAMC core EPAs for entering residency. CONCLUSIONS: A framework of EPAs for interns in Ireland that are appropriate for the intern year has been developed by key stakeholders. The implementation of the EPAs in practice is the next step, and is likely to result in an improved intern training process and increased patient safety.