Understanding the epidemiology of avoidable significant harm in primary care: protocol for a retrospective cross-sectional study

Introduction Most patient safety research has focused on specialist-care settings where there is an appreciation of the frequency and causes of medical errors, and the resulting burden of adverse events. There have, however, been few large-scale robust studies that have investigated the extent and severity of avoidable harm in primary care. To address this, we will conduct a 12-month retrospective cross-sectional study involving case note review of primary care patients. Methods and analysis We will conduct electronic searches of general practice (GP) clinical computer systems to identify patients with avoidable significant harm. Up to 16 general practices from 3 areas of England (East Midlands, London and the North West) will be recruited based on practice size, to obtain a sample of around 100 000 patients. Our investigations will include an ‘enhanced sample’ of patients with the highest risk of avoidable significant harm. We will estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm and express this as ‘per 100 000 patients per year’. Univariate and multivariate analysis will be conducted to identify the factors associated with avoidable significant harm. Ethics/Dissemination The decision regarding participation by general practices in the study is entirely voluntary; the consent to participate may be withdrawn at any time. We will not seek individual patient consent for the retrospective case note review, but if patients respond to publicity about the project and say they do not wish their records to be included, we will follow these instructions. We will produce a report for the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme and several high-quality peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals. The study has been granted a favourable opinion by the East Midlands Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 15/EM/0411) and Confidentiality Advisory Group approval for access to medical records without consent under section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 (reference 15/CAG/0182).

[1]  M. Arini.  Patient Safety in Primary Health Care , 2017 .

[2]  D. Bates,et al.  How safe is primary care? A systematic review , 2015, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[3]  A. Sheikh,et al.  A cross-sectional mixed methods study protocol to generate learning from patient safety incidents reported from general practice , 2015, BMJ Open.

[4]  A. Edwards,et al.  Harms from discharge to primary care: mixed methods analysis of incident reports , 2015, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[5]  D. Bates,et al.  Safer primary care for all: a global imperative. , 2013, The Lancet. Global health.

[6]  BMJ Open , 2012 .

[7]  Charles Vincent,et al.  Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study , 2012, BMJ quality & safety.

[8]  D. Goldmann,et al.  Deciphering harm measurement. , 2012, JAMA.

[9]  C. Landrigan,et al.  Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  James R. Carpenter,et al.  Care homes’ use of medicines study: prevalence, causes and potential harm of medication errors in care homes for older people , 2009, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[11]  P. Bowie,et al.  A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care , 2009, BMC family practice.

[12]  P. Bowie,et al.  The preliminary development and testing of a global trigger tool to detect error and patient harm in primary-care records , 2009, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[13]  S. Sheps,et al.  The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[14]  T. Brennan,et al.  Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I* , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[15]  P. Davis,et al.  Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals II: preventability and clinical context. , 2003, The New Zealand medical journal.

[16]  P. Davis,et al.  Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. , 2002, The New Zealand medical journal.

[17]  L. Donaldson.  An organisation with a memory. , 2002, Clinical medicine.

[18]  B. Pedersen,et al.  [Incidence of adverse events in hospitals. A retrospective study of medical records]. , 2001, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[19]  C. Vincent,et al.  Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  T. Brennan,et al.  Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. , 2000, Medical care.

[21]  J. Brazier,et al.  Quality of minor surgery by general practitioners in 1990 and 1991. , 1994, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[22]  T. Brennan,et al.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  R. Payne,et al.  Polypharmacy and medicines optimisation: Making it safe and sound , 2013 .

[24]  A. Sheikh,et al.  Identifying and establishing consensus on the most important safety features of GP computer systems: e-Delphi study. , 2005, Informatics in primary care.

[25]  T. Brennan,et al.  Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. 1991. , 2004, Quality & safety in health care.

[26]  William R. Hendee,et al.  To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System , 2001 .

[27]  J. Corrigan,et al.  To Err Is Human Building a Safer Health System , 2000 .