Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 142 No. 2324 (2012)

Threats to patient safety in the primary care office: concerns of physicians and nurses

  • David Schwappach
  • Katrin Gehring
  • Markus Battaglia
  • Roman Buff
  • Felix Huber
  • Peter Sauter
  • Markus Wieser
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2012.13601
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13601
Published
03.06.2012

Summary

BACKGROUND: Little is known about primary care professionals’ concerns about risks to patient safety.

AIM: To identify threats to patient safety in the primary care office from the perspective of physicians and nurses.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey; participants were asked to name and rank threats to safety they personally were most concerned about.

SETTING: Physicians and nurses working in primary care offices in Switzerland.

METHODS: Verbatim reports were analysed under an inductive content-analysis framework. Coded threats were quantitatively analysed in terms of frequency and prioritisation. Differences between physicians and nurses were analysed.

RESULTS: Of 1260 invited individuals, 630 responded to the survey and 391 (31%) described 936 threats to patient safety. The coding system included 29 categories organised in 5 themes. Agreement of coders was good (kappa = 0.87, CI = 0.86–0.87). Safety of medication (8.8%), triage by nurses (7.2%) and drug interactions (6.8%) were the threats cited most frequently. Errors in diagnosis (OR = 0.21, CI 0.09–0.47, p <0.001), drug interactions (OR = 0.10, CI 0.04–0.25, p <0.001) and compliance of patients (OR = 0.28, CI 0.08–0.96, p = 0.044) were more likely to be cited by physicians. X-rays (OR = 3.34, CI 1.04–10.71, p = 0.043), confusion of patients or records (OR = 3.28, CI 1.55–6.94, p = 0.002), hygiene (OR = 3.21, CI1.12–9.19, p = 0.030), safety of office rooms (OR = 6.70, CI 1.46–30.73, p = 0.014), and confidentiality (OR = 7.38, CI 1.63–33.50, p = 0.010) were more likely to be described by nurses.

CONCLUSION: Physicians and nurses are concerned about diverse threats to patient safety in primary care. Involving both groups in detection and analysis of risks in medical offices seems a valuable strategy to improve collaboration and safety.

References

  1. Institute of Medicine. To err is human. Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
  2. Schwappach DL. Frequency of and predictors for patient-reported medical and medication errors in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2011;141:w13262.
  3. Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Hoonhout LHF, Waaijman R, Smits M, et al. Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(4):297–302.
  4. Aranaz-Andres JM, Aibar-Remon C, Vitaller-Murillo J, Ruiz-Lopez P, Limon-Ramirez R, Terol-Garcia E, et al. Incidence of adverse events related to health care in Spain: results of the Spanish National Study of Adverse Events. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(12):1022–9.
  5. Soop M, Fryksmark U, Koster M, Haglund B. The incidence of adverse events in Swedish hospitals: a retrospective medical record review study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21(4):285–91.
  6. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ. 2001;322(7285):517–9.
  7. Sandars J, Esmail A. The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies. Fam Pract. 2003;20(3):231–6.
  8. Thomsen LA, Winterstein AG, Sondergaard B, Haugbolle LS, Melander A. Systematic Review of the incidence and characteristics of preventable adverse drug events in ambulatory care. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(9):1411–26.
  9. Miller GC, Britth HC, Valenti L. Adverse drug events in general practice patients in Australia. Med J Aust. 2006;184(7):321–4.
  10. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Harrold LR, Rothschild J, Debellis K, Seger AC, et al. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA. 2003;289(9):1107–16.
  11. Rubin G, George A, Chinn DJ, Richardson C. Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(6):443–7.
  12. Elder NC, Meulen MV, Cassedy A. The identification of medical errors by family physicians during outpatient visits. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(2):125–9.
  13. Gehring K, Schwappach DLB, Battaglia M, Buff R, Huber F, Sauter P, et al. Frequency of and harm associated with safety incidents in the primary care office (under review). Am J Manag Care. 2012.
  14. Weller SC. Cultural consensus theory: applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods. 2007;19(4):339–68.
  15. Bousfield WA, Barclay WD. The relationship between order and frequency of occurrence of restricted associative responses. J Exp Psychol. 1950;40(5):643–7.
  16. Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4 ed. New York: Altamira Press; 2006.
  17. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2000 [cited 2007 Nov 26];1(2)Available from: URL: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.htm
  18. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.
  19. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurs Edu Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.
  20. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15(9):1277–88.
  21. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15.
  22. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2011.
  23. 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;16(2):95–100.
  24. Dovey SM, Meyers DS, Phillips RL, Jr., Green LA, Fryer GE, Galliher JM, et al. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(3):233–8.
  25. Pace WD, Fernald DH, Harris DM, Dickinson LM, Araya-Guerra R, Staton EW, et al. Developing a taxonomy for coding ambulatory medical errors: A report from the ASIPS collaborative. Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation.Rockville,MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005.
  26. Makeham MA, Dovey SM, County M, Kidd MR. An international taxonomy for errors in general practice: a pilot study. Med J Aust. 2002;177(2):68–72.
  27. Tishelman C, Lövgren M, Broberger E, Hamberg K, Sprangers MAG. Are the most distressing concerns of patients with inoperable lung cancer adequately assessed? A mixed-methods analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1942–9.
  28. Lindqvist O, Tishelman C, Hagelin CL, Clark JB, Daud ML, Dickman A, et al. Complexity in non-pharmacological caregiving activities at the end of life: An international qualitative study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(2):e1001173.
  29. Fennell D, Liberato ASQ, Zsembik B. Definitions and patterns of CAM use by the lay public. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2009;17(2):71–7.
  30. Bennett I, Switzer J, Aguirre A, Evans K, Barg F. “Breaking it down”: Patient-clinician communication and prenatal care among African American women of low and higher literacy. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2006;4(4):334–40.
  31. Sutrop U. List Task and a Cognitive Salience Index. Field Methods. 2001;13(3):263–76.
  32. Libertino L, Ferraris D, Lopez Osornio MM, Hough G. Analysis of data from a free-listing study of menus by different income-level populations. Food Quality and Preference. 2012;24(2):269–75.
  33. Smith JJ. Using ANTHOPAC 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a free-list salience index. Field Methods. 1993;5(3):1–3.
  34. Hoffmann B, Beyer M, Rohe J, Gensichen J, Gerlach FM. “Every error counts”: a web-based incident reporting and learning system for general practice. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(4):307–12.
  35. O’Beirne M, Sterling PD, Zwicker K, Hebert P, Norton PG. Safety incidents in family medicine. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2011;20(12):1005–10.
  36. Amalberti R, Brami J. Tempos management in primary care: a key factor for classifying adverse events, and improving quality and safety. BMJ Quality & Safety 2011.
  37. Smits M, Huibers L, Kerssemeijer B, de Feijter E, Wensing M, Giesen P. Patient safety in out-of-hours primary care: a review of patient records. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1):335.
  38. Giesen P, Ferwerda R, Tijssen R, Mokkink H, Drijver R, van den Bosch W, et al. Safety of telephone triage in general practitioner cooperatives: do triage nurses correctly estimate urgency? Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16(3):181–4.
  39. Hansen EH, Hunskaar S. Telephone triage by nurses in primary care out-of-hours services in Norway: an evaluation study based on written case scenarios. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2011;20(5):390–6.