Dataset Information

Blame the Patient, Blame the Doctor or Blame the System? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Patient Safety in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Studies of patient safety in health care have traditionally focused on hospital medicine. However, recent years have seen more research located in primary care settings which have different features compared to secondary care. This study set out to synthesize published qualitative research concerning patient safety in primary care in order to build a conceptual model.

Method

Meta-ethnography, an interpretive synthesis method whereby third order interpretations are produced that best describe the groups of findings contained in the reports of primary studies.

Results

Forty-eight studies were included as 5 discrete subsets where the findings were translated into one another: patients' perspectives of safety, staff perspectives of safety, medication safety, systems or organisational issues and the primary/secondary care interface. The studies were focused predominantly on issues seen to either improve or compromise patient safety. These issues related to the characteristics or behaviour of patients, staff or clinical systems and interactions between staff, patients and staff, or people and systems. Electronic health records, protocols and guidelines could be seen to both degrade and improve patient safety in different circumstances. A conceptual reading of the studies pointed to patient safety as a subjective feeling or judgement grounded in moral views and with potentially hidden psychological consequences affecting care processes and relationships. The main threats to safety appeared to derive from 'grand' systems issues, for example involving service accessibility, resources or working hours which may not be amenable to effective intervention by individual practices or health workers, especially in the context of a public health system.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings underline the human elements in patient safety primary health care. The key to patient safety lies in effective face-to-face communication between patients and health care staff or between the different staff involved in the care of an individual patient. Electronic systems can compromise safety when they override the opportunities for face-to-face communication. The circumstances under which guidelines or protocols are seen to either compromise or improve patient safety needs further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Daker-White G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4526558 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Blame the Patient, Blame the Doctor or Blame the System? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Patient Safety in Primary Care.

Daker-White Gavin G Hays Rebecca R McSharry Jennifer J Giles Sally S Cheraghi-Sohi Sudeh S Rhodes Penny P Sanders Caroline C

PloS one 20150805 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Studies of patient safety in health care have traditionally focused on hospital medicine. However, recent years have seen more research located in primary care settings which have different features compared to secondary care. This study set out to synthesize published qualitative research concerning patient safety in primary care in order to build a conceptual model.<h4>Method</h4>Meta-ethnography, an interpretive synthesis method whereby third order interpretations are produc ...[more]

PMID: 26244494

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Hong Kong (HK) has pluralistic primary care that is provided by a variety of doctors. The aim of our study was to assess patient-reported outcomes of primary care consultations in HK and whether having a family doctor (FD) made any difference. METHODS: We interviewed by telephone 3148 subjects from 5174 contacted households (response rate 60.8%) randomly selected from the general population of HK about the experience of their last primary care consultations in September 2007 and April 2008. We compared the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-centered process of care in those with a FD, those with other types of regular primary care doctors (ORD) and those without any regular primary care doctor (NRD). PRO included patient enablement, global improvement in health, overall satisfaction, and likelihood of recommending their doctors to family and friends. Patient-centered process of care indicators was explanations about the illness, and address of patient's concerns. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred fifty, 746, and 1157 reported to have FD, ORD, and NRD, respectively. Over 80% of those with FD consulted their usual primary care doctors in the last consultation compared with 27% of those with NRD. Compared with subjects having ORD or NRD, subjects with FD reported being more enabled after the consultation and were more likely to recommend their doctors to family and friends. Subjects with FD and ORD were more likely than those having NRD to report a global improvement in health and satisfaction. FD group was more likely than the other two groups to report receiving an explanation on the diagnosis, nature, and expected course of the illness, and having their concerns addressed. Patient enablement was associated with explanation of diagnosis, nature, and expected course of illness, and address of patient's concerns. CONCLUSION: People with a regular FD were more likely to feel being enabled and to experience patient-centered care in consultations.

Project description:BackgroundThe need to expand and better engage patients in primary care improvement persists.PurposeRecognizing a continuum of forms of engagement, this study focused on identifying lessons for optimizing patient partnerships, wherein engagement is characterized by shared decision-making and practice improvement codesign.MethodologyTwenty-three semistructured interviews with providers and patients involved in improvement efforts in seven U.S. primary care practices in the Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC). The AIC aimed to implement primary care improvement, emphasizing patient engagement in the process. Data were analyzed thematically.ResultsSites varied in their achievement of patient partnerships, encountering material, technical, and sociocultural obstacles. Time was a challenge for all sites, as was engaging a diversity of patients. Technical training on improvement processes and shared learning "on the job" were important. External, organizational, and individual-level resources helped overcome sociocultural challenges: The AIC drove provider buy-in, a team-based improvement approach helped shift relationships from providers and recipients toward teammates, and individual qualities and behaviors that flattened hierarchies and strengthened interpersonal relationships further enhanced "teamness." A key factor influencing progress toward transformative partnerships was a strong shared learning journey, characterized by frequent interactions, proximity to improvement decision-making, and learning together from the "lived experience" of practice improvement. Teams came to value not only patients' knowledge but also changes wrought by working collaboratively over time.ConclusionEstablishing practice improvement partnerships remains challenging, but partnering with patients on improvement journeys offers distinctive gains for high-quality patient-centered care.Practice implicationsEngaging diverse patient partners requires significant disruption to organizational norms and routines, and the trend toward team-based primary care offers a fertile context for patient partnerships. Material, technical, and sociocultural resources should be evaluated not only for whether they overcome specific challenges but also for how they enhance the shared learning journey.

Dataset Information

Blame the Patient, Blame the Doctor or Blame the System? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Patient Safety in Primary Care.

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Blame the Patient, Blame the Doctor or Blame the System? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Patient Safety in Primary Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets