Levels of agreement on the grading, analysis and reporting of significant events by general practitioners: A cross-sectional study

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 339-345

  McKay, J ^a,b   Bowie, P ^b   Murray, L ^a   Lough, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b NHS EDUCATION FOR SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; PILOT PROJECTS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; SCOTLAND;

EID: 61449147127     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: 14753901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2007.024323     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Department of Health. An organisation with a memory. London: Department of Health, 2001.
2. Department of Health. 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. London: Department of Health, 2001.
3. Pringle M, Bradley CP, Carmichael CM, et al. Significant event auditing. A study of the feasibility and potential of case-based auditing in primary medical care. Occasional Paper No 70. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 1995.
4. Wilson T, Pringle M, Sheikh A. Promoting patient safety in primary care: research, action and leadership are required. BMJ 2001;323:583-4.
5. National Patient Safety Agency. Seven steps to patient safety for primary care. London: National Patient Safety Agency, 2005.
6. Kostopoulou O, Delaney B. Confidential reporting of patient safety events in primary care: results from a multilevel classification of cognitive and system factors. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;15:95-100.
7. Elder N, Vonder Meulin MV, Cassidy A. The identification of medical errors by family physicians during outpatient visits. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:125-9.
8. Rubin G, George A, Chin D, et al. Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:443-7.
9. Sanders J, Esmail A. The frequency and nature of medical errors in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies. Fam Pract 2003;20:231-6.
10. Dovey S, Meyers D, Philips RJ, et al. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:233-8.
11. Esmail A, Neale G, Elstein M, et al. Case studies in litigation: claims reviews in four specialities. Report published by the Manchester Centre for Healthcare Management. Manchester: University of Manchester, 2004.
12. Makeham MAB, Kidd MR, Saltman DC, et al. The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study: incidence of reported errors in general practice. Med J Aust 2006;185:95-8.
13. British Medical Association. People value local GP surgeries [press release]. London: British Medical Association, April 2005. http://www.bma.org.uk (accessed 10 Jul 2007).
14. Harrison P, Joesbury H, Martin D, et al. Significant event audit and reporting in general practice. Commissioned Report by the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, February 2002. Search via http://www.shef.ac.uk (accessed 13 Jul 2004).
15. Bowie P, McKay J, Norrie J, et al. Awareness and analysis of a significant event by general practitioners: a cross sectional survey. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:102-7.
16. McKay J, Bowie P, Murray L, et al. Barriers to significant event analysis: an attitudinal survey of principals in general practice. Qual Primary Care 2003;11:189-98.
17. McKay J, Bowie P, Murray L, et al. Attitudes to the identification and reporting of significant events in general practice. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2004;9:96-100.
18. National Patient Safety Agency. Quarterly National Reporting and Learning System Data Summary. London: National Patient Safety Agency, Autumn, 2006.
19. Cowan J. Achieving consistency in grading adverse clinical incidents: does doing less harm do the job? British Journal of Clinical Governance 2002;7:63-7.
20. Makeham MAB, Dovey SM, County M, et al. An international taxonomy for errors in general practice: a pilot study. Med J Austr 2002;177:68-72.
21. Bhasale A. The wrong diagnosis: identifying causes of potentially adverse events in general practice using incident monitoring. Fam Pract 1998;14:308-18.
22. Fischer G, Fetters MD, Munro AP, et al. Adverse events in primary care identified from a risk management database. J Fam Pract 1997;45:40-8.
23. McKay J, Bowie P, Lough JRM. Variation in the ability of general medical practitioners to apply two methods of clinical audit: a 5-year study of assessment by peer review. J Eval Clin Pract 2006;12:622-9.
24. Bowie P, McCoy S, McKay J, et al. Learning issues raised by the educational peer review of significant event analyses in general practice. Qual Primary Care 2005;13:75-84.
25. Bowie P, McKay J, Dalgetty E, et al. A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and peer assessment. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:185-9.
26. Department of Health. New GMS contract 2006/7. London: The Stationery Office, 2006.
27. Stanhope N, Crowley-Murphy M, Vincent C, et al. An evaluation of adverse incident reporting. J Eval Clin Pract 1999;5:5-12.
28. Vincent C, Stanhope N, Crowley-Murphy M. Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study. J Eval Clin Pract 1999;5:13-21.
29. Evans SM, Berry JG, Smith BJ, et al. Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:39-43.
30. Vincent C. Incident reporting and patient safety. BMJ 2007;334:51-2.
31. Billings C. Incident reporting systems in medicine and experience and experience with the aviation reporting system. In: Cook RI, woods DD, Miller CA, eds. A tale of two stories: contrasting views of patient safety. North Adams, MA: US National Patient Safety Foundation, 1998:52-61.
32. Department of Health. A first class service: quality in the new NHS. London: The Stationery Office, 1998.