Search

Introduction: Patients being discharged from inpatient mental wards often describe safety risks in terms of inadequate information sharing and involvement in discharge decisions. Through stakeholder engagement, we co-designed, developed and adapted two versions of a care bundle intervention, the SAFER Mental Health care bundle for adult and youth inpatient mental health settings (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH, respectively), that look to address these concerns through the introduction of new or improved processes of care., Methods and Analysis: Two uncontrolled before-and-after feasibility studies, where all participants will receive the intervention. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-MH in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged 18 years or older who are being discharged and the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-YMH intervention in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged between 14 and 18 years who are being discharged. The baseline period and intervention periods are both 6 weeks. SAFER-MH will be implemented in three wards and SAFER-YMH in one or two wards, ideally across different trusts within England. We will use quantitative (eg, questionnaires, completion forms) and qualitative (eg, interviews, process evaluation) methods to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the two versions of the intervention. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients/wards should be included., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee and Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/SW/0096 and 22/LO/0404). Research findings will be disseminated with participating sites and shared in various ways to engage different audiences. We will present findings at international and national conferences, and publish in open-access, peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents., Design: Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded., Setting: Primary care., Participants: Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients)., Main Outcome Measures: The incidence of significant harm considered at least 'probably avoidable' and the nature of the safety incidents., Results: The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines., Conclusion: There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Patients and carers should be active partners in patient safety with healthcare professionals and be empowered to use personalised approaches to identify safety concerns and work together to prevent them. This protocol paper details a study to examine the feasibility of a multicomponent intervention to involve patients and/or carers in patient safety in primary care in the UK., Methods and Analysis: This is a two-phase, non-randomised feasibility mixed methods pragmatic study of a patient safety guide for primary care (PSG-PC). 8 general practices will recruit 120 patient and/or carer participants. All patient and/or carer participants will receive the PSG-PC. It will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the PSG-PC in primary care settings in patients aged 18 years or older who attend appointments at general practice with health professionals four or more times per year as either patients or carers. It will identify secondary outcomes for improving patient safety, health status and patient empowerment, and reducing health service utilisation over 6 months between baseline and 6-month follow-ups. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients and practices will be needed. The study will be undertaken between January 2020 and September 2021., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service London-West London and Gene Therapy Advisory Committee Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/LO/1289). Research findings will be disseminated with participating general practices and shared in a range of different ways to engage different audiences, including presenting at international and national conferences, publishing in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and facilitating dissemination workshops within local communities with patients, carers and healthcare professionals., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN90222092., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Major gaps remain in our understanding of primary care patient safety. We describe a toolkit for measuring patient safety in family practices., Methods: Six tools were used in 46 practices. These tools were as follows: National Health Service Education for Scotland Trigger Tool, National Health Service Education for Scotland Medicines Reconciliation Tool, Primary Care Safequest, Prescribing Safety Indicators, Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care, and Concise Safe Systems Checklist., Results: Primary Care Safequest showed that most practices had a well-developed safety climate. However, the trigger tool revealed that a quarter of events identified were associated with moderate or substantial harm, with a third originating in primary care and avoidable. Although medicines reconciliation was undertaken within 2 days in more than 70% of cases, necessary discussions with a patient/carer did not always occur. The prescribing safety indicators identified 1435 instances of potentially hazardous prescribing or lack of recommended monitoring (from 92,649 patients). The Concise Safe Systems Checklist found that 25% of staff thought that their practice provided inadequate follow-up for vulnerable patients discharged from hospital and inadequate monitoring of noncollection of prescriptions. Most patients had a positive perception of the safety of their practice although 45% identified at least one safety problem in the past year., Conclusions: Patient safety is complex and multidimensional. The Patient Safety Toolkit is easy to use and hosted on a single platform with a collection of tools generating practical and actionable information. It enables family practices to identify safety deficits that they can review and change procedures to improve their patient safety across a key sets of patient safety issues.

Objectives: To identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research., Design: A modified nominal group technique., Setting: UK., Participants: Anyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions., Main Outcomes: A top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety., Results: 443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality., Conclusions: This study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Description of safety problems and harm in general practices has previously relied on information from health professionals, with scarce attention paid to experiences of patients., Aim: To examine patient-reported experiences and outcomes of patient safety in primary care., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional study in 45 general practices across five regions in the north, centre, and south of England., Method: A version of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 6736 patients. Main outcome measures included 'practice activation' (what a practice does to create a safe environment); 'patient activation' (how proactive are patients in ensuring safe healthcare delivery); 'experiences of safety events' (safety errors); 'outcomes of safety' (harm); and 'overall perception of safety' (how safe patients rate their practice)., Results: Questionnaires were returned by 1244 patients (18.4%). Scores were high for 'practice activation' (mean [standard error] = 80.4 out of 100 [2.0]) and low for 'patient activation' (26.3 out of 100 [2.6]). Of the patients, 45% reported experiencing at least one safety problem in the previous 12 months, mostly related to appointments (33%), diagnosis (17%), patient provider communication (15%), and coordination between providers (14%). Twenty-three per cent of the responders reported some degree of harm in the previous 12 months. The overall assessment of level of safety of practices was generally high (86.0 out of 100 [16.8])., Conclusion: Priority areas for patient safety improvement in general practices in England include appointments, diagnosis, communication, coordination, and patient activation., (© British Journal of General Practice 2017.)

Background: Patient safety in primary care is a developing field with an embryonic but evolving evidence base. This narrative review aims to identify tools that can be used by family practitioners as part of a patient safety toolkit to improve the safety of the care and services provided by their practices., Methods: Searches were performed in 6 healthcare databases in 2011 using 3 search stems; location (primary care), patient safety synonyms and outcome measure synonyms. Two reviewers analysed the results using a numerical and thematic analyses. Extensive grey literature exploration was also conducted., Results: Overall, 114 Tools were identified with 26 accrued from grey literature. Most published literature originated from the USA (41%) and the UK (23%) within the last 10 years. Most of the literature addresses the themes of medication error (55%) followed by safety climate (8%) and adverse event reporting (8%). Minor themes included; informatics (4.5%) patient role (3%) and general measures to correct error (5%). The primary/secondary care interface is well described (5%) but few specific tools for primary care exist. Diagnostic error and results handling appear infrequently (<1% of total literature) despite their relative importance. The remainder of literature (11%) related to referrals, Out-Of-Hours (OOH) care, telephone care, organisational issues, mortality and clerical error., Conclusions: This review identified tools and indicators that are available for use in family practice to measure patient safety, which is crucial to improve safety and design a patient safety toolkit. However, many of the tools have yet to be used in quality improvement strategies and cycles such as plan-do-study-act (PDSA) so there is a dearth of evidence of their utility in improving as opposed to measuring and highlighting safety issues. The lack of focus on diagnostics, systems safety and results handling provide direction and priorities for future research.

Background: The majority of patient contacts occur in general practice but general practice patient safety has been poorly described and under-researched to date compared to hospital settings. Our objective was to produce a set of patient safety tools and indicators that can be used in general practices in any healthcare setting and develop a 'toolkit' of feasible patient safety measures for general practices in England., Methods: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method exercise was conducted with a panel of international experts in general practice patient safety. Statements were developed from an extensive systematic literature review of patient safety in general practice. We used standard RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method rating methods to identify necessary items for assessing patient safety in general practice, framed in terms of the Structure-Process-Outcome taxonomy. Items were included in the toolkit if they received an overall panel median score of ≥ 7 with agreement (no more than two panel members rating the statement outside a 3-point distribution around the median)., Results: Of 205 identified statements, the panel rated 101 as necessary for assessing the safety of general practices. Of these 101 statements, 73 covered structures or organisational issues, 22 addressed processes and 6 focused on outcomes., Conclusions: We developed and tested tools that can lead to interventions to improve safety outcomes in general practice. This paper reports the first attempt to systematically develop a patient safety toolkit for general practice, which has the potential to improve safety, cost effectiveness and patient experience, in any healthcare system.

Background: Medication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking., Aim: To identify and update a set of prescribing-safety indicators for assessing the safety of prescribing in general practice, and to estimate the risk of harm to patients associated with each indicator., Design and Setting: RAND/UCLA consensus development of indicators in UK general practice., Method: Prescribing indicators were identified from a systematic review and previous consensus exercise. The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to further identify and develop the indicators with an electronic-Delphi method used to rate the risk associated with them. Twelve GPs from all the countries of the UK participated in the RAND exercise, with 11 GPs rating risk using the electronic-Delphi approach., Results: Fifty-six prescribing-safety indicators were considered appropriate for inclusion (overall panel median rating of 7-9, with agreement). These indicators cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic indications, hazardous drug-drug combinations and inadequate laboratory test monitoring. Twenty-three (41%) of these indicators were considered high risk or extreme risk by 80% or more of the participants., Conclusion: This study identified a set of 56 indicators that were considered, by a panel of GPs, to be appropriate for assessing the safety of GP prescribing. Twenty-three of these indicators were considered to be associated with high or extreme risk to patients and should be the focus of efforts to improve patient safety.