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

Clinical Governance

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 96-100

  McKay, John ^a   Bowie, Paul ^a   Murray, Lilian ^a   Lough, Murray ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

General practice; Information management; Patient care

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MANDATORY REPORTING; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT RIGHT; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SAFETY; SHORT SURVEY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 2942665606     PISSN: 14777274     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/14777270410536376     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. Leape, L.L. (2000), "Reporting of medical errors: time for a reality check", Quality & Safety in Health Care, Vol. 9, pp. 144-5.
10. 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.
11. Mayor, S. (2001), "NHS introduces new patient safety agency", British Medical Journal, Vol. 322, p. 1013.
12. Ness, G. and Cordess, C. (2002), "Honesty and openness may not be best policy", British Medical Journal, Vol. 324, Letter, p. 109.
13. Pringle, M. (2001), "Ensuring patient safety", British Journal of General Practice, Vol, 51 No. 10, pp. 876-7.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.