Digital patient safety interventions in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jung Yin Tsang, Claire Planner, Chloe-Nicole Low, Stuart Stewart, Charlotte Morris, Brandon Wong, Spyridon Marios Delitheos, George Kulangara, Lap Kan Derek Yu, Ashwanth Bosswell Suresh Babu, Alyaa Ajabnoor, Darren M Ashcroft, Maria Panagioti
{"title":"Digital patient safety interventions in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jung Yin Tsang, Claire Planner, Chloe-Nicole Low, Stuart Stewart, Charlotte Morris, Brandon Wong, Spyridon Marios Delitheos, George Kulangara, Lap Kan Derek Yu, Ashwanth Bosswell Suresh Babu, Alyaa Ajabnoor, Darren M Ashcroft, Maria Panagioti","doi":"10.1186/s12916-026-05048-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient safety events are among the top ten causes of death and disability worldwide, with most considered preventable, particularly in primary care. Digital interventions are increasingly used in primary care to improve patient safety, targeting errors and preventing adverse events. Evaluating their effectiveness and implementation is essential to inform clinical practice and policy. The study aims included a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of digital patient safety interventions in primary care, comparing single and multicomponent interventions, identifying effective components, and exploring factors influencing their success.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from January 2001 to June 2025, restricted to English-language publications. This review followed PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials assessing digital interventions aimed at improving patient safety outcomes in primary care were included. Safety outcomes were grouped into medication safety and non-medication process measures, and adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted and verified data and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by consensus. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for predefined safety outcomes, and a narrative synthesis described implementation factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated benefits for medication safety process measures (k = 54; Odds Ratio (OR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-1.64), non-medication process measures (k = 40; OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.56-2.01), and adverse events (k = 12; OR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.06-1.30). Overall, multicomponent interventions consistently showed greater improvements than single-component interventions. Interventions combining components of clinical decision support and audit and feedback were most effective for medication safety, while patient-facing components had greater impact on non-medication process measures. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses restricted to higher-quality RCTs. Effectiveness was likely influenced by implementation factors, including workflow integration and relational support.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital interventions in primary care are associated with moderate improvements across multiple patient safety process measures. Multicomponent approaches appear most promising, with effectiveness potentially shaped by implementation, patient engagement and contextual factors. These findings support the broader adoption of well-designed, contextually adapted digital strategies to enhance patient safety and underscore the need for ongoing evaluation of the sociotechnical factors supporting delivery of these interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13430711/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-05048-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient safety events are among the top ten causes of death and disability worldwide, with most considered preventable, particularly in primary care. Digital interventions are increasingly used in primary care to improve patient safety, targeting errors and preventing adverse events. Evaluating their effectiveness and implementation is essential to inform clinical practice and policy. The study aims included a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of digital patient safety interventions in primary care, comparing single and multicomponent interventions, identifying effective components, and exploring factors influencing their success.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from January 2001 to June 2025, restricted to English-language publications. This review followed PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials assessing digital interventions aimed at improving patient safety outcomes in primary care were included. Safety outcomes were grouped into medication safety and non-medication process measures, and adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted and verified data and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by consensus. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for predefined safety outcomes, and a narrative synthesis described implementation factors.

Results: Seventy-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated benefits for medication safety process measures (k = 54; Odds Ratio (OR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-1.64), non-medication process measures (k = 40; OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.56-2.01), and adverse events (k = 12; OR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.06-1.30). Overall, multicomponent interventions consistently showed greater improvements than single-component interventions. Interventions combining components of clinical decision support and audit and feedback were most effective for medication safety, while patient-facing components had greater impact on non-medication process measures. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses restricted to higher-quality RCTs. Effectiveness was likely influenced by implementation factors, including workflow integration and relational support.

Conclusions: Digital interventions in primary care are associated with moderate improvements across multiple patient safety process measures. Multicomponent approaches appear most promising, with effectiveness potentially shaped by implementation, patient engagement and contextual factors. These findings support the broader adoption of well-designed, contextually adapted digital strategies to enhance patient safety and underscore the need for ongoing evaluation of the sociotechnical factors supporting delivery of these interventions.

初级保健中的数字化患者安全干预:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:患者安全事件是全世界十大死亡和残疾原因之一,其中大多数被认为是可以预防的,特别是在初级保健中。数字干预措施越来越多地用于初级保健,以提高患者安全,针对错误和预防不良事件。评估其有效性和实施对临床实践和政策至关重要。该研究的目的包括对初级保健中数字患者安全干预措施的有效性进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较单组分和多组分干预措施,确定有效组分,并探索影响其成功的因素。方法:检索2001年1月至2025年6月的MEDLINE、EMBASE和CENTRAL,仅限于英文出版物。本次审查遵循PRISMA指南。包括评估旨在改善初级保健患者安全结果的数字干预措施的随机对照试验。安全性结果分为用药安全性、非用药过程措施和不良事件。两位审稿人独立提取和验证数据,评估偏倚风险,通过共识解决差异。对预定义的安全结果进行随机效应荟萃分析,并对实施因素进行叙述性综合分析。结果:纳入74项随机对照试验(RCTs)。荟萃分析证明了药物安全过程措施(k = 54;优势比(OR) 1.46, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.30-1.64)、非药物过程措施(k = 40; OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.56-2.01)和不良事件(k = 12; OR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.06-1.30)的益处。总体而言,多组分干预始终比单组分干预表现出更大的改善。结合临床决策支持和审计反馈成分的干预措施对用药安全最有效,而面向患者的成分对非用药过程措施的影响更大。在高质量随机对照试验的敏感性分析中,结果保持一致。有效性可能受到实现因素的影响,包括工作流集成和关系支持。结论:初级保健中的数字干预与多项患者安全流程措施的适度改善有关。多组分方法似乎最有希望,其有效性可能受到实施、患者参与和环境因素的影响。这些发现支持更广泛地采用设计良好、适应环境的数字战略,以提高患者安全,并强调需要持续评估支持这些干预措施交付的社会技术因素。
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
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
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