Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review

Avery, Anthony J., Sheehan, Christiana, Bell, Brian, Armstrong, Sarah, Ashcroft, Darren M., Boyd, Matthew J., Chuter, Antony, Cooper, Alison ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8660-6721, Donnelly, Alisa, Edwards, Adrian ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-4446, Evans, Huw Prosser, Hellard, Stuart, Lymn, Joanne, Mehta, Rajnikant, Rodgers, Sarah, Sheikh, Aziz, Smith, Pam, Williams, Huw, Campbell, Stephen M. and Carson-Stevens, Andrew ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7580-7699 2021. Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review. BMJ Quality and Safety 30 , pp. 961-976. 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011405

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

Objective To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents. Design Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded. Setting Primary care. Participants Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients). Main outcome measures The incidence of significant harm considered at least ‘probably avoidable’ and the nature of the safety incidents. Results The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines. Conclusion There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Additional Information:	This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license
Publisher:	BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:	2044-5415
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	14 September 2020
Date of Acceptance:	12 September 2020
Last Modified:	24 May 2023 22:10
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/134825

Citation Data

Cited 12 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item