Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices

A cross-sectional study

Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Kate S. Marsden, Anthony J. Avery, Brian G. Bell, Umesh T. Kadam, David Reeves, Sarah P. Slight, Katherine Perryman, Jane Barnett, Ian Litchfield, Sally Thomas, Stephen M. Campbell, Lucy Doos, Aneez Esmail, Jose M. Valderas

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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%). Twentythree 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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)e474-e482
    JournalBritish Journal of General Practice
    Volume67
    Issue number660
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2017

    Fingerprint

    Patient Safety
    General Practice
    Cross-Sectional Studies
    Safety
    Patient Participation
    England
    Primary Health Care
    Appointments and Schedules
    Communication
    Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
    Delivery of Health Care
    Health

    Cite this

    Ricci-Cabello, I., Marsden, K. S., Avery, A. J., Bell, B. G., Kadam, U. T., Reeves, D., ... Valderas, J. M. (2017). Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: A cross-sectional study. British Journal of General Practice, 67(660), e474-e482. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X691085
    Ricci-Cabello, Ignacio ; Marsden, Kate S. ; Avery, Anthony J. ; Bell, Brian G. ; Kadam, Umesh T. ; Reeves, David ; Slight, Sarah P. ; Perryman, Katherine ; Barnett, Jane ; Litchfield, Ian ; Thomas, Sally ; Campbell, Stephen M. ; Doos, Lucy ; Esmail, Aneez ; Valderas, Jose M. / Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices : A cross-sectional study. In: British Journal of General Practice. 2017 ; Vol. 67, No. 660. pp. e474-e482.
    @article{5149674a07184251a878bc61152d78e1,
    title = "Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: A cross-sectional study",
    abstract = "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{\%}). Twentythree 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.",
    keywords = "Healthcare evaluation mechanisms, Healthcare surveys, Patient safety, Patient-centred care, Primary care",
    author = "Ignacio Ricci-Cabello and Marsden, {Kate S.} and Avery, {Anthony J.} and Bell, {Brian G.} and Kadam, {Umesh T.} and David Reeves and Slight, {Sarah P.} and Katherine Perryman and Jane Barnett and Ian Litchfield and Sally Thomas and Campbell, {Stephen M.} and Lucy Doos and Aneez Esmail and Valderas, {Jose M.}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "7",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.3399/bjgp17X691085",
    language = "English",
    volume = "67",
    pages = "e474--e482",
    journal = "Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners",
    issn = "0960-1643",
    publisher = "Royal College of General Practitioners",
    number = "660",

    }

    Ricci-Cabello, I, Marsden, KS, Avery, AJ, Bell, BG, Kadam, UT, Reeves, D, Slight, SP, Perryman, K, Barnett, J, Litchfield, I, Thomas, S, Campbell, SM, Doos, L, Esmail, A & Valderas, JM 2017, 'Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: A cross-sectional study', British Journal of General Practice, vol. 67, no. 660, pp. e474-e482. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X691085

    Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices : A cross-sectional study. / Ricci-Cabello, Ignacio; Marsden, Kate S.; Avery, Anthony J.; Bell, Brian G.; Kadam, Umesh T.; Reeves, David; Slight, Sarah P.; Perryman, Katherine; Barnett, Jane; Litchfield, Ian; Thomas, Sally; Campbell, Stephen M.; Doos, Lucy; Esmail, Aneez; Valderas, Jose M.

    In: British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 67, No. 660, 01.07.2017, p. e474-e482.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices

    T2 - A cross-sectional study

    AU - Ricci-Cabello, Ignacio

    AU - Marsden, Kate S.

    AU - Avery, Anthony J.

    AU - Bell, Brian G.

    AU - Kadam, Umesh T.

    AU - Reeves, David

    AU - Slight, Sarah P.

    AU - Perryman, Katherine

    AU - Barnett, Jane

    AU - Litchfield, Ian

    AU - Thomas, Sally

    AU - Campbell, Stephen M.

    AU - Doos, Lucy

    AU - Esmail, Aneez

    AU - Valderas, Jose M.

    PY - 2017/7/1

    Y1 - 2017/7/1

    N2 - 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%). Twentythree 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.

    AB - 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%). Twentythree 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.

    KW - Healthcare evaluation mechanisms

    KW - Healthcare surveys

    KW - Patient safety

    KW - Patient-centred care

    KW - Primary care

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021716081&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.3399/bjgp17X691085

    DO - 10.3399/bjgp17X691085

    M3 - Article

    VL - 67

    SP - e474-e482

    JO - Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

    JF - Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

    SN - 0960-1643

    IS - 660

    ER -