Abstract
Objectives: To determine the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) were aware of a recent significant event and whether a structured analysis of this event was undertaken to minimise the perceived risk of recurrence.
Design: Cross sectional survey using a postal questionnaire.
Setting: Greater Glasgow primary care trust.
Participants: 466 principals in general practice from 188 surgeries.
Main outcome measures: GPs' self-reported personal and practice characteristics, awareness of a recent significant event, participation in the structured analysis of the identified significant event, perceived chance of recurrence, forums for discussing and analysing significant events, and levels of primary care team involvement.
Results: Four hundred and sixty six GPs (76%) responded to the survey. GPs from single handed practices were less likely to respond than those in multi-partner training and non-training practices. 401 (86%) reported being aware of a recent significant event; lack of awareness was clearly associated with GPs from non-training practices. 219 (55%) had performed all the necessary stages of a structured analysis (as determined by the authors) of the significant event. GPs from training practices were more likely to report participation in the structured analysis of the recent event, to perceive the chance of this event recurring as "nil" or "very low", and to report significant event discussions taking place.
Conclusions: Most GPs were aware of a recent significant event and participated in the structured analysis of this event. The wider primary care team participated in the analysis process where GPs considered this involvement relevant. There is variation in the depth of and approach to significant event analysis within general practice, which may have implications for the application of the technique as part of the NHS quality agenda.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (124.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Benett I. J., Danczak A. F. Terminal care: improving teamwork in primary care using Significant Event Analysis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1994 Jun;3(2):54–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.1994.tb00013.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bradley C. P. Turning anecdotes into data--the critical incident technique. Fam Pract. 1992 Mar;9(1):98–103. doi: 10.1093/fampra/9.1.98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- FLANAGAN J. C. The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull. 1954 Jul;51(4):327–358. doi: 10.1037/h0061470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Helmreich R. L. On error management: lessons from aviation. BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):781–785. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jacobson Lionel, Elwyn Glyn, Robling Michael, Jones Rhiannedd Tudor. Error and safety in primary care: no clear boundaries. Fam Pract. 2003 Jun;20(3):237–241. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Plsek P. E., Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):625–628. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Westcott R., Sweeney G., Stead J. Significant event audit in practice: a preliminary study. Fam Pract. 2000 Apr;17(2):173–179. doi: 10.1093/fampra/17.2.173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilson T., Pringle M., Sheikh A. Promoting patient safety in primary care. BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):583–584. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilson Tim, Sheikh Aziz. Enhancing public safety in primary care. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):584–587. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]