Attitudes to the identification and reporting of significant events in general practice

Emerald - Tập 9 Số 2 - Trang 96-100 - 2004
JohnMcKay1, PaulBowie1, LilianMurray2, MurrayLough3
1Associate Adviser, Department of Postgraduate Medical Education at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Statistician, Department of Postgraduate Medical Education at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
3Assistant Director, Department of Postgraduate Medical Education at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Tóm tắt

The new National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) aims to facilitate the mandatory reporting of relevant significant events. A questionnaire survey of 617 general practitioners was undertaken and 466 responses were received (76 per cent). A minority (18 per cent) agreed the reporting of adverse incidents should be mandatory, while a majority (73 per cent) agreed that they would be selective in their reporting in a mandatory system. Most (75 per cent) favoured a local anonymised system of reporting. A difficulty in determining when an event is “significant” was acknowledged by 41 per cent of respondents and 30 per cent agreed significant events were often not acted on. Less experienced respondents were more likely to have difficulty in determining when an event is significant (p = 0.01). The success of the NPSA system may be obstructed by the mandatory requirement to participate and in the difficulty for some in determining when an event is “significant”.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Baker, R. and Streathfield, J. (1995), “What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction”, Br. J. Gen. Pract., Vol. 45, pp. 654‐9.

Bowie, P., McKay, J. and Lough, M. (2003), “Peer assessment of significant event analyses: being a trainer confers an advantage”, Education for Primary Care, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 338‐44.

Campbell, S.M., Sheaff, R., Sibbald, B., Marshall, M.N., Pickard, S., Gask, L., Halliwell, S., Roger, A. and Roland, M.O. (2002), “Implementing clinical governance in English primary care groups/trusts: reconciling quality improvement and quality assurance”, Quality & Safety in Health Care, Vol. 11, pp. 9‐14.

Cohen, M.R. (2000), “Why error‐reporting systems should remain voluntary – they provide better information for reducing errors”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 319, pp. 136‐7.

Department of Health (2000), “An organisation with a memory”, Report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health, London.

Department of Health (2001), “Doing less harm: improving the safety and quality of care through reporting, analysing and learning from adverse incidents involving NHS patients – key requirements for health‐care providers”, Department of Health, London.

Fraser, R.C. and Gosling, J.T. (1985), “Information systems for general practitioners for quality assessment: I. Responses of the doctors”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 23 No. 291 (6507), pp. 1473‐6.

Harrison, P., Joesbury, H., Martin, D., Wilson, R. and Fewtrell, C. (2002), “Significant event audit and reporting in general practice”, Commissioned Report by the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, available at: www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/R‐Z/scharr/ (accessed 27 December).

Leape, L.L. (2000), “Reporting of medical errors: time for a reality check”, Quality & Safety in Health Care, Vol. 9, pp. 144‐5.

McKay, J., Bowie, P. and Lough, M. (2003), “Evaluating significant event analyses: implementing change is a measure of success”, Education for Primary Care, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 34‐8.

Mayor, S. (2001), “NHS introduces new patient safety agency”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 322, p. 1013.

Ness, G. and Cordess, C. (2002), “Honesty and openness may not be best policy”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 324, Letter, p. 109.

Pringle, M. (2001), “Ensuring patient safety”, British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 876‐7.

Pringle, M., Bradley, C.P., Carmichael, C.M., Wallis, H. and Moore, A. (1995), “Significant event auditing. A study of the feasibility and potential of case‐based auditing in primary medical care”, Occasional Paper No. 70, Royal College of General Practitioners, London.

Runciman, B., Merry, A. and McCall Smith, A. (2001), “Improving patients' safety by gathering information: anonymous reporting has an important role”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 323, p. 298.

Vincent, C., Stanhope, N. and Crowley‐Murphy, M. (1999), “Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study”, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13‐21.

Lawton, R. and Parker, D. (2002), “Barriers to incident reporting in a health‐care system”, Quality & Safety in Health Care, Vol. 11, pp. 15‐18.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Emerald

Tập 9 Số 2

96-100

Thông tin tác giả