Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Protocol

Contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care: protocol for a systematic review

Authors: Sally Giles, Maria Panagioti, Andrea Hernan, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Rebecca Lawton

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Organisations need to systematically identify contributory factors (or causes) which impact on patient safety in order to effectively learn from error. Investigations of error have tended to focus on taking a reactive approach to learning from error, mainly relying on incident-reporting systems. Existing frameworks which aim to identify latent causes of error rely almost exclusively on evidence from non-healthcare settings. In view of this, the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) was developed in the hospital setting. Eighty-five percent of healthcare contacts occur in primary care. As a result, this review will build on the work that produced the YCFF, by examining the empirical evidence that relates to the contributory factors of error within a primary care setting.

Methods/design

Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. The database search will be supplemented by additional search methodologies including citation searching and snowballing strategies which include reviewing reference lists and reviewing relevant journal table of contents, that is, BMJ Quality and Safety. Our search strategy will include search combinations of three key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies conducted in a primary care setting. They will include some description of the factors that contribute to patient safety. One reviewer (SG) will screen all the titles and abstracts, whilst a second reviewer will screen 50% of the abstracts. Two reviewers (SG and AH) will perform study selection, quality assessment and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), patient safety incident type and characteristics, practice characteristics and study outcomes.

Discussion

The review will summarise the literature relating to contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care. The findings from this review will provide an evidence-based contributory factors framework for use in the primary care setting. It will increase understanding of factors that contribute to patient safety incidents and ultimately improve quality of health care.
Literature
1.
go back to reference McEachan RC, Lawton R, O’Hara JK, Armitage GA, Giles SJ, Parveen S, et al. Developing a reliable and valid patient measure of safety in hospitals (PMOS): a validation study. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002312. McEachan RC, Lawton R, O’Hara JK, Armitage GA, Giles SJ, Parveen S, et al. Developing a reliable and valid patient measure of safety in hospitals (PMOS): a validation study. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002312.
2.
go back to reference Sari AB, Sheldon TA, Cracknell A, Turnbull A. Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospital: retrospective patient case note review. BMJ. 2007;334:79.CrossRefPubMed Sari AB, Sheldon TA, Cracknell A, Turnbull A. Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospital: retrospective patient case note review. BMJ. 2007;334:79.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Shojania KG. The frustrating case of incident-reporting systems. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:400.CrossRefPubMed Shojania KG. The frustrating case of incident-reporting systems. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:400.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference VuurenW SC, van der Schaaf TW. The development of an incident analysis tool for the medical field. Eindhoven: Report from Faculty of Technology Management, University of Eindhoven; 1997. VuurenW SC, van der Schaaf TW. The development of an incident analysis tool for the medical field. Eindhoven: Report from Faculty of Technology Management, University of Eindhoven; 1997.
6.
go back to reference World Health Organisation. Conceptual framework for the international classification for patient safety: final technical report version 1.1. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2009. World Health Organisation. Conceptual framework for the international classification for patient safety: final technical report version 1.1. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2009.
7.
go back to reference Taylor-Adams SVC. Systems analysis of clinical incidents: the London protocol. Clin Risk. 2004;10:211–20.CrossRef Taylor-Adams SVC. Systems analysis of clinical incidents: the London protocol. Clin Risk. 2004;10:211–20.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bagian JP, Gosbee J, Lee CZ, Williams L, McKnight SD, Mannos DM. The veterans affairs root cause analysis system in action. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:531–45.PubMed Bagian JP, Gosbee J, Lee CZ, Williams L, McKnight SD, Mannos DM. The veterans affairs root cause analysis system in action. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:531–45.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Runciman WB, Sellen A, Webb RK, Williamson JA, Currie M, Morgan C, et al. The Australian incident monitoring study. Errors, incidents and accidents in anaesthetic practice. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1993;21:506–9.PubMed Runciman WB, Sellen A, Webb RK, Williamson JA, Currie M, Morgan C, et al. The Australian incident monitoring study. Errors, incidents and accidents in anaesthetic practice. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1993;21:506–9.PubMed
10.
go back to reference LINNEAUS EURO-PC. Patient safety classification for primary care version 3.1. 2012 LINNEAUS EURO-PC. Patient safety classification for primary care version 3.1. 2012
11.
go back to reference Dovey S, Meyers D, Phillips R, Green L, Fryer G, Galliher J, et al. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(3):233–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dovey S, Meyers D, Phillips R, Green L, Fryer G, Galliher J, et al. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(3):233–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Gaba DM. Structural and organizational issues in patient safety: a comparison of health care to other high-hazard industries. Calif Manage Rev. 2000;43:83–102.CrossRef Gaba DM. Structural and organizational issues in patient safety: a comparison of health care to other high-hazard industries. Calif Manage Rev. 2000;43:83–102.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Lawton R, McEachan RC, Giles SJ, Sirriyeh R, Watt IS, Wright J. Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:369–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lawton R, McEachan RC, Giles SJ, Sirriyeh R, Watt IS, Wright J. Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:369–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Dodds A. The management of risks to patient safety and service quality in primary care: a review. London, UK: King’s Patient Safety and Service Quality Research Centre; 2010. Dodds A. The management of risks to patient safety and service quality in primary care: a review. London, UK: King’s Patient Safety and Service Quality Research Centre; 2010.
16.
go back to reference Hill AP, Freeman GK. Promoting continuity of care in general practice. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2011. Hill AP, Freeman GK. Promoting continuity of care in general practice. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2011.
17.
go back to reference Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2014. Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2014.
18.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(6):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(6):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Bower P, Gilbody S, Richards D, Fletcher J, Sutton A. Collaborative care for depression in primary care: making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189(6):484–93.CrossRefPubMed Bower P, Gilbody S, Richards D, Fletcher J, Sutton A. Collaborative care for depression in primary care: making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189(6):484–93.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Centre for Reviews and Dissemination UoY. Systematic reviews CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD, University of York; 2009. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination UoY. Systematic reviews CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD, University of York; 2009.
21.
go back to reference Blakemore A, Dickens C, Guthrie E, Bower P, Kontopantelis E, Afzal C, et al. Depression, anxiety and health related quality of life in COPD: a systematic review. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 9:501-512. Blakemore A, Dickens C, Guthrie E, Bower P, Kontopantelis E, Afzal C, et al. Depression, anxiety and health related quality of life in COPD: a systematic review. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 9:501-512.
22.
go back to reference Tang N, Meyer S. Ambulatory patient safety: the time is now comment on “patient perceptions of mistakes in ambulatory care”. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(16):1487–9.CrossRefPubMed Tang N, Meyer S. Ambulatory patient safety: the time is now comment on “patient perceptions of mistakes in ambulatory care”. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(16):1487–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care: protocol for a systematic review
Authors
Sally Giles
Maria Panagioti
Andrea Hernan
Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi
Rebecca Lawton
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0052-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Systematic Reviews 1/2015 Go to the issue