远程初级保健就诊的患者安全:多方法定性研究,结合安全性I和安全性II分析。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rebecca Payne, Aileen Clarke, Nadia Swann, Jackie van Dael, Natassia Brenman, Rebecca Rosen, Adam Mackridge, Lucy Moore, Asli Kalin, Emma Ladds, Nina Hemmings, Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt, Stuart Faulkner, Isabel Hanson, Sophie Spitters, Sietse Wieringa, Francesca H Dakin, Sara E Shaw, Joseph Wherton, Richard Byng, Laiba Husain, Trisha Greenhalgh
{"title":"远程初级保健就诊的患者安全:多方法定性研究,结合安全性I和安全性II分析。","authors":"Rebecca Payne, Aileen Clarke, Nadia Swann, Jackie van Dael, Natassia Brenman, Rebecca Rosen, Adam Mackridge, Lucy Moore, Asli Kalin, Emma Ladds, Nina Hemmings, Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt, Stuart Faulkner, Isabel Hanson, Sophie Spitters, Sietse Wieringa, Francesca H Dakin, Sara E Shaw, Joseph Wherton, Richard Byng, Laiba Husain, Trisha Greenhalgh","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them.</p><p><strong>Setting and sample: </strong>UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"573-586"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11347200/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Payne, Aileen Clarke, Nadia Swann, Jackie van Dael, Natassia Brenman, Rebecca Rosen, Adam Mackridge, Lucy Moore, Asli Kalin, Emma Ladds, Nina Hemmings, Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt, Stuart Faulkner, Isabel Hanson, Sophie Spitters, Sietse Wieringa, Francesca H Dakin, Sara E Shaw, Joseph Wherton, Richard Byng, Laiba Husain, Trisha Greenhalgh\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016674\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them.</p><p><strong>Setting and sample: </strong>UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"573-586\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11347200/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016674\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016674","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:分诊和临床会诊越来越多地远程进行。我们的目的是了解为什么安全事故发生在远程接触和如何防止它们。背景和样本:英国初级保健。95起涉及远程交互的安全事件(投诉、已解决的赔偿要求和报告)。另外,2021-2023年有12项一般做法。方法:多方法定性研究。我们回顾性地探讨了实际安全事故的原因(“安全I”分析)。在一项前瞻性纵向研究中,我们使用访谈和人种学观察来产生个人、组织和系统层面的解释,解释为什么安全和未遂事件(很少)发生,为什么它们不经常发生(“安全II”分析)。数据按主题进行分析。在成员与安全专家和生活经验专家核对后,对安全事件发生的原因和不经常发生的原因进行了解释性综合。结果:安全事故的特点是方式不当、关系建立不良、信息收集不足、临床评估有限、途径不当(如算法错误)和对社会环境重视不足。这些导致漏诊、不准确或延迟诊断、低估严重程度或紧迫性、延迟转诊、不正确或延迟治疗、不良的安全网和不充分的随访。患有复杂既往疾病、心脏或腹部急症、症状模糊或全身性、保障问题、对先前治疗无效或沟通困难的患者似乎特别容易受到伤害。一般做法面临资源限制、人员不足和高需求。分诊和护理路径复杂,难以导航,涉及多个工作人员。在这种情况下,患者安全往往取决于个别工作人员的主动性、直言不讳或个性化解决方案。结论:虽然远程初级保健的安全事故极为罕见,但造成了死亡和严重伤害。我们为患者、工作人员和系统级别的缓解措施提供建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.

Background: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them.

Setting and sample: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023.

Methods: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts.

Results: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions.

Conclusion: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信