Table 4.
Summary of themes and sub-themes in relation to individual tools
| Theme | Sub-theme 1 | Sub-theme 2 | Trigger tool | PC-Safe-Quest | PREOS-PC | Prescribing Safety Indicators | Medicines Reconciliation Tool | Concise Safe Systems Checklist for General Practice |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Tool Design | 1.1 Utility | Inform patient safety Training aide Provide evidence of safe practice. |
Did not uncover enough learning points for those using SEA. | Provided a useful practice-wide staff perspective. | Provided a novel patient perspective. | Produced useful patient specific information. | Produced useful information. | Produced useful information that prompted reflection on safety issues. |
| 1.2 Usability | Format Time to completion Integration with existing systems |
Was time consuming in the selection of individual records. | Completed online and easy to follow. | Resource intensive due to the addressing and packing of multiple envelopes. | Required either existing IT knowledge or additional help and support. | Straightforward to use. | Easy to use and quick to complete | |
| 2. Organisational factors | 2.1 Staff training | Existing skill set | Was straightforward to use though a preference for an electronic version was expressed. | No training needed though an email address for each staff member was required. | Issues arose selecting random patients and using ‘mail merge’ to address letters and envelopes. | Staff training was required to run the software and upload the results. | No formal training required. An electronic version preferred. | No training required |
| 2.2 Available resource | Staffing levels, Time constraints |
|||||||
| 2.3 Existing patient safety approaches | Comparative effectiveness | |||||||
| 3. Environmental context | 3.1 Clinical commissioning group | Existing initiatives | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Repeated the work of a CCG initiative in one area. | N/A |
| 3.2 Central policy | Financial Incentives Fragmented policy |