TY - JOUR
T1 - A Patient Safety Toolkit for Family Practices
AU - Campbell, Stephen M.
AU - Bell, Brian G.
AU - Marsden, Kate
AU - Spencer, Rachel
AU - Kadam, Umesh
AU - Perryman, Katherine
AU - Rodgers, Sarah
AU - Litchfield, Ian
AU - Reeves, David
AU - Chuter, Antony
AU - Doos, Lucy
AU - Ricci-Cabello, Ignacio
AU - Gill, Paramjit
AU - Esmail, Aneez
AU - Greenfield, Sheila
AU - Slight, Sarah
AU - Middleton, Karen
AU - Barnett, Jane
AU - Valderas, Jose M.
AU - Sheikh, Aziz
AU - Avery, Anthony J.
AU - Moore, Michael
N1 - Funding Information:
From the *NIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester; †Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; ‡Centre for Research and Action in Public Health (CeRAPH), University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; §Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham; ||Health Services Research Unit, Guy Hilton Research Centre, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent; ¶Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham; **68 Brighton Cottages, Copyhold Lane, Lindfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex; ††Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford; ‡‡School of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Health, Holliday Building (C132), Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham; §§Primary Medical Care, University of Southampton, ||||Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton; ¶¶Health Services and Policy Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter; and ***Medical School, Teviot Place, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom. Correspondence: Brian G. Bell, PhD, 1313 Tower Bldg, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD (e‐mail: [email protected]). The authors disclose no conflict of interest. This work was funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, the National Health Service, or the Department of Health. Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.journalpatientsafety.com). Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Funding Information:
The Royal College of General Practitioners, funded by the NIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, hosts an online version of the toolkit as part of their “Spotlight Projects,” which gives clinicians globally access to the toolkit: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/clinical-and-research/ toolkits/patient-safety.aspx. This will help general practice staff monitor and improve patient safety. Future work could further establish the reliability and validity of the various tools and determine whether the routine use of the toolkit results in improvements in patient safety in family practice.
Publisher Copyright:
© Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - primary care
KW - patient safety
KW - safety climate
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078104874&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000471
DO - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000471
M3 - Other Journal Article
SN - 1549-8417
VL - 16
SP - 182
EP - 186
JO - Journal of Patient Safety
JF - Journal of Patient Safety
IS - 3
ER -