Patient Safety in Family Medicine through the Eyes of People with Chronic Conditions in Slovenia.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Staša Grabar, Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš
{"title":"Patient Safety in Family Medicine through the Eyes of People with Chronic Conditions in Slovenia.","authors":"Staša Grabar, Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš","doi":"10.2478/sjph-2026-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient safety is a key dimension of healthcare quality, although most research has focused on hospital settings. This study analysed patient-reported experiences related to safety in Slovenian family medicine using data from the OECD PaRIS survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 among 70 family medicine practices in Slovenia. Data were collected using two validated questionnaires: the PaRIS Primary Care Patient Questionnaire (PaRIS-PQ) and the Primary Care Practice Questionnaire (PaRIS-PCPQ). Items Q69-Q75 of the PaRIS-PQ were analysed to assess experiences related to the use of medicines, medication review, repetition of information, adverse events, encouragement to express concerns, and barriers to care. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, correlation analysis, and binary logistic regression were used in data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents with chronic conditions totalled 2,133 (mean age 63.1 ± 10.9 years; 62.7% female). Polypharmacy (≥ 3 medications) occurred in 27% of respondents; only 19.7% had received a medication review in the previous 12 months. Seventeen percent reported experiencing at least one adverse event. Significant predictors of reported adverse events included repeated requests for personal medical information (p < 0.001), lack of encouragement to express concerns (p = 0.008), and transport barriers to accessing care (p = 0.024). The regression model explained a small proportion of the variance (Nagelkerke R<sup>2</sup> = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient safety in Slovenian family medicine shows both strengths and areas requiring improvement. Communication processes, access barriers, and coordination of information appear to play an important role in perceived safety. Strengthening medication review practices and improving digital interoperability across healthcare settings may contribute to safer care in family medicine. Patient-reported measures such as PaRIS provide valuable insights for monitoring and improving patient safety in family medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":45127,"journal":{"name":"Zdravstveno Varstvo","volume":"65 2","pages":"94-103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13236478/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zdravstveno Varstvo","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/sjph-2026-0012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Patient safety is a key dimension of healthcare quality, although most research has focused on hospital settings. This study analysed patient-reported experiences related to safety in Slovenian family medicine using data from the OECD PaRIS survey.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 among 70 family medicine practices in Slovenia. Data were collected using two validated questionnaires: the PaRIS Primary Care Patient Questionnaire (PaRIS-PQ) and the Primary Care Practice Questionnaire (PaRIS-PCPQ). Items Q69-Q75 of the PaRIS-PQ were analysed to assess experiences related to the use of medicines, medication review, repetition of information, adverse events, encouragement to express concerns, and barriers to care. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, correlation analysis, and binary logistic regression were used in data analysis.

Results: Respondents with chronic conditions totalled 2,133 (mean age 63.1 ± 10.9 years; 62.7% female). Polypharmacy (≥ 3 medications) occurred in 27% of respondents; only 19.7% had received a medication review in the previous 12 months. Seventeen percent reported experiencing at least one adverse event. Significant predictors of reported adverse events included repeated requests for personal medical information (p < 0.001), lack of encouragement to express concerns (p = 0.008), and transport barriers to accessing care (p = 0.024). The regression model explained a small proportion of the variance (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.02).

Conclusions: Patient safety in Slovenian family medicine shows both strengths and areas requiring improvement. Communication processes, access barriers, and coordination of information appear to play an important role in perceived safety. Strengthening medication review practices and improving digital interoperability across healthcare settings may contribute to safer care in family medicine. Patient-reported measures such as PaRIS provide valuable insights for monitoring and improving patient safety in family medicine.

斯洛文尼亚慢性病患者眼中的家庭医学患者安全。
导言:患者安全是医疗保健质量的一个关键方面,尽管大多数研究都集中在医院环境。本研究使用经合组织巴黎调查的数据分析了斯洛文尼亚家庭医疗安全方面的患者报告经验。方法:在2023年对斯洛文尼亚的70个家庭医学实践进行了横断面研究。使用两份有效问卷收集数据:巴黎初级保健患者问卷(PaRIS- pq)和初级保健实践问卷(PaRIS- pcpq)。对PaRIS-PQ的Q69-Q75项进行分析,以评估与药物使用、药物审查、信息重复、不良事件、鼓励表达关切和护理障碍相关的经历。资料分析采用描述性统计、卡方检验、相关分析和二元逻辑回归。结果:慢性疾病患者共2133人(平均年龄63.1±10.9岁,女性占62.7%)。27%的应答者存在多药(≥3种药物);只有19.7%的患者在过去12个月内接受过药物审查。17%的人报告至少经历过一次不良事件。报告不良事件的重要预测因素包括反复要求提供个人医疗信息(p < 0.001),缺乏表达担忧的鼓励(p = 0.008),以及获得医疗服务的交通障碍(p = 0.024)。回归模型解释了一小部分方差(Nagelkerke R2 = 0.02)。结论:斯洛文尼亚家庭医学的患者安全既有优势,也有需要改进的地方。沟通过程、获取障碍和信息协调似乎在感知安全中起着重要作用。加强药物审查实践和改善医疗保健环境中的数字互操作性可能有助于家庭医学更安全的护理。患者报告的措施,如PaRIS,为监测和改善家庭医学中的患者安全提供了宝贵的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Zdravstveno Varstvo
Zdravstveno Varstvo PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书