Dataset Information

Tools for measuring patient safety in primary care settings using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The majority of patient contacts occur in general practice but general practice patient safety has been poorly described and under-researched to date compared to hospital settings. Our objective was to produce a set of patient safety tools and indicators that can be used in general practices in any healthcare setting and develop a 'toolkit' of feasible patient safety measures for general practices in England.

Methods

A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method exercise was conducted with a panel of international experts in general practice patient safety. Statements were developed from an extensive systematic literature review of patient safety in general practice. We used standard RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method rating methods to identify necessary items for assessing patient safety in general practice, framed in terms of the Structure-Process-Outcome taxonomy. Items were included in the toolkit if they received an overall panel median score of ≥ 7 with agreement (no more than two panel members rating the statement outside a 3-point distribution around the median).

Results

Of 205 identified statements, the panel rated 101 as necessary for assessing the safety of general practices. Of these 101 statements, 73 covered structures or organisational issues, 22 addressed processes and 6 focused on outcomes.

Conclusions

We developed and tested tools that can lead to interventions to improve safety outcomes in general practice. This paper reports the first attempt to systematically develop a patient safety toolkit for general practice, which has the potential to improve safety, cost effectiveness and patient experience, in any healthcare system.

SUBMITTER: Bell BG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4060097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom's national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed.MethodsWe developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of 'significant harm'. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define "avoidable harm" within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings.ResultsPanelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1?s or 2?s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7?s 8?s or 9?s) were represented by these a priori categories.DiscussionThe findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety.ConclusionWe have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe United Kingdom (UK) is experiencing a general practitioner (GP) workforce retention crisis. Research has focused on investigating why GPs intend to quit, but less is known about the acceptability and effectiveness of policies and strategies to improve GP retention. Using evidence from research and key stakeholder organisations, we generated a set of potential policies and strategies aimed at maximising GP retention and tested their appropriateness for implementation by systematically consulting with GPs.Methods28 GP Partners and GPs working in national stakeholder organisations from South West England and London were purposively sampled, and asked to take part in a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method panel. Panellists were asked to read an evidence briefing summary, and then complete an online survey on two occasions. During each round, participants rated the appropriateness of policies and strategies aimed at improving GP retention using a nine point scale (1 'extremely inappropriate' to 9 'extremely appropriate'). Fifty-four potential policies and strategies (equating to 100 statements) were tested, focusing on factors influencing job satisfaction (e.g. well-being, workload, incentives and remuneration, flexible working, human resources systems). Ratings were analysed for panel consensus and categorised based on appropriateness ('appropriate', 'uncertain', 'inappropriate').Results12/28 GPs approached agreed to take part, 9/28 completed two rounds of the online survey between February and June 2018. Panellists identified 24/54 policy and strategy areas (41/100 statements) as 'appropriate'. Examples included providing GP practices 'at risk' of experiencing GP shortages with a toolkit for managing recruitment and retention, and interventions to facilitate peer support to enhance health and wellbeing, or support portfolio careers. Strategies to limit GP workload, and manage patient demand were also endorsed.ConclusionsThe panel of experienced GPs identified a number of practical ways to improve GP retention through interventions that might enhance job satisfaction and work-life balance. Future research should evaluate the impact of implementing these recommendations.

Project description:PurposeTo summarize the results of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)'s analysis of appropriate delivery of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for endometrial cancer using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, outline areas of convergence and divergence with the 2014 ASTRO endometrial Guideline, and highlight where this analysis provides new information or perspective.Methods and materialsThe RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine available evidence with expert opinion. A comprehensive literature review was conducted and a multidisciplinary panel rated the appropriateness of RT options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by the median rating as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Inappropriate.ResultsThe ASTRO endometrial Guideline and this analysis using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method did not recommend adjuvant RT for early-stage, low-risk endometrioid cancers and largely agree regarding use of vaginal brachytherapy for low-intermediate and high-intermediate risk patients. For more advanced endometrioid cancer, chemotherapy with RT is supported by both documents. The Guideline and the RAND/UCLA analysis diverged regarding use of pelvic radiation. For stages II and III, this analysis rated external beam RT plus vaginal brachytherapy Appropriate, whereas the Guideline preferred external beam alone. In addition, this analysis offers insight on the role of histology, extent of nodal dissection, and para-aortic nodal irradiation; the use of intensity modulated RT; and management of stage IVA.ConclusionsThis analysis based on the RAND/UCLA Method shows significant agreement with the 2014 endometrial Guideline. Areas of divergence, often in scenarios with low-level evidence, included use of external beam RT plus vaginal brachytherapy in stages II and III and external beam RT alone in early-stage patients. Furthermore, the analysis explores other important questions regarding management of this disease site.