Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review

References

• Vincent C, Burnett S, Carthey J, The measurement and monitoring of safety. London, UK: Health Foundation; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Verbakel NJ, Langelaan M, Verheij TJ, et al. Improving patient safety culture in primary care: a systematic review. J Patient Saf. 2016;12:152–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Health Foundation. Research scan: levels of harm in primary care. 2011. [cited 2018 June 18]. Available from: http://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/LevelsOfHarmInPrimaryCare.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Panesar S, deSilva D, Carson-Stevens, et al. How safe is primary care? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:544–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hippisley-Cox J, Fenty J, Heaps M, Trends in consultation rates in general practice 1995 to 2006: analysis of the QRESEARCH database. London: QRESEARCH and The Information Centre for Health and Social Care; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Elder NC, Vonder Meulen M, Cassedy A. The identification of medical errors by family physicians during outpatient visits. Ann Fam Ned. 2004;2:125–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosser W, Dovey S, Bordman R, et al. Medical errors in primary care: results of an international study of family practice. Can Fam Physician 2005;51:387–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. World alliance for patient safety: the conceptual framework of an international patient safety event classification [executive summary]. Copenhagen: WHO; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Samra R, Bottle A, Aylin P. Monitoring patient safety in primary care: an exploratory study using in-depth semi structured interviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer R, Campbell SM. Tools for primary care patient safety: A narrative review. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanskamp-Sebregts M, Zegers M, Vincent C, et al. Measurement of patient safety: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lydon S, Cupples M, Murphy A, et al. A systematic review of measurement tools for the proactive assessment of patient safety in general practice. J Patient Saf. DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woloshynowych M, Neale G, Vincent C. Case record review of adverse events: a new approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:411–415.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bowie P, Halley L, Gillies J, et al. Searching primary care records for predefined triggers may expose latent risks and adverse events. Clinical Risk. 2012;18:13–18.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, et al. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:216–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James J. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013;9:122–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis J, Harrington N, Bittner Fagan H, et al. The accuracy of trigger tools to detect preventable adverse events in primary care: A systematic review. J Am Board Fam. Med. 2018;31:113–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 2009; 6:e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WONCA EUROPE. The European definition of general practice/family medicine. 2011. http://www.woncaeurope.org/sites/default/files/documents/Definition%203rd%20ed%202011%20with%20revised%20wonca%20tree.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004;24:105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P, et al. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:746–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly F, Byrne D, Lydon S, et al. Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29:973–980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wet C, Black C, Luty S, et al. Implementation of the trigger review method in Scottish general practices: patient safety outcomes and potential for quality improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:335–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wet C, Bowie P. The preliminary development and testing of a global trigger tool to detect error and patient harm in primary-care records. Postgrad Med J 2009;85:176–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKay J, de Wet C, Kelly M, et al. Applying the trigger review method after a brief educational intervention: potential for teaching and improving safety in GP specialty training? BMC Med Ed 2013;13:117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaal S, Verstappen W, Wolters R, et al. Prevalence and consequences of patient safety incidents in general practice in the Netherlands: a retrospective medical record review study. Implementation Sci 2011;6:37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martijn L, Harmsen M, Gaal S, et al. Are health professionals’. Perceptions of patient safety related to figures on safety incidents? J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19:944–947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetzels R, Wolters R, van Weel C, et al. Mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice: a prospective observational study. BMC Fam Pract. 2008;9:35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits M, Huibers L, Kerssemeijer B, et al. Patient safety in out-of-hours primary care: a review of patient records. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetzels R, Wolters R, van Weel C, et al. Harm caused by adverse events in primary care: a clinical observational study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15:323–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sears N, Baker RG, Barnsley J, et al. The incidence of adverse events among home care patients. Int J Qual Health Care 2013;25:16–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solberg LI, Asche SE, Averbeck BM, et al. Can patient safety be measured by surveys of patient experiences? J Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34:266–274.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Montserrat-Capella D, Suarez M, Ortiz L, et al. Frequency of ambulatory care adverse events in Latin American countries: the AMBEAS/PAHO cohort study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27:52–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoo EM, Lee WK, Sararaks S, et al. Medical errors in primary care clinics-a cross sectional study. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoo EM, Sararaks S, Lee WK, et al. Reducing medical errors in primary care using a pragmatic complex intervention. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015;27:670–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggleton KS, Dovey SM. Using triggers in primary care patient records to flag increased adverse event risk and measure patient safety at clinic level. NZ Med J 2014;127:45–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Wet C, Bowie P. Screening electronic patient records to detect preventable harm: a trigger tool for primary care. Qual Prim Care. 2011;19:115–125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elder NC, Pallerla H, Regan S. What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wallace E, Lowry J, Smith SM, et al. The epidemiology of malpractice claims in primary care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke MJ, Egger M. Grey literature in meta‐analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahood Q, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synthes Methods. 2014;5:221–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B. Hindsight not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. 1975. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:304–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Runciman WB, Baker GP, Michel P, et al. The epistemology of patient safety research. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008;6:476–486.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, et al. Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18:297–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Wet C, Johnson P, Mash R, et al. Measuring perceptions of safety climate in primary care: a cross-sectional study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:135–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curran C, Lydon S, Kelly M, et al. A systematic review of primary care safety climate survey instruments: their origins, psychometric properties, quality and usage. J Patient Saf. 2018;14:e9–e18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar