Safety climate and its association with office type and team involvement in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in safety climate perceptions between occupational groups and types of office organization in primary care. METHODS: Primary care physicians and nurses working in outpatient offices were surveyed about safety climate. Explorative factor analysis was performed to determine the factorial structure. Differences in mean climate scores between staff groups and types of office were tested. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine predictors for a 'favorable' safety climate. RESULTS: 630 individuals returned the survey (response rate, 50%). Differences between occupational groups were observed in the means of the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (physician 4.0 vs. nurse 3.8, P < 0.001). Medical centers scored higher compared with single-handed offices and joint practices on the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (4.3 vs. 3.8 vs. 3.9, P < 0.001) but less favorable on the 'rules and risks'-scale (3.5 vs. 3.9 vs. 3.7, P < 0.001). Characteristics on the individual and office level predicted favorable 'team-based error prevention'-scores. Physicians (OR = 0.4, P = 0.01) and less experienced staff (OR 0.52, P = 0.04) were less likely to provide favorable scores. Individuals working at medical centers were more likely to provide positive scores compared with single-handed offices (OR 3.33, P = 0.001). The largest positive effect was associated with at least monthly team meetings (OR 6.2, P < 0.001) and participation in quality circles (OR 4.49, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that frequent quality circle participation and team meetings involving all team members are effective ways to strengthen safety climate in terms of team-based strategies and activities in error prevention.

Frequency of and harm associated with primary care safety incidents.

OBJECTIVE: To assess frequency and severity of patient safety incidents in primary care. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of health-care professionals in Swiss primary care offices. METHODS: Physicians and nurses in primary care offices were surveyed about the frequency and severity of 23 safety incidents. Differences between professional groups and types of offices were analyzed. Reported incidents were classified in a matrix. RESULTS: A total of 630 individuals (50.2% physicians, 49.8% nurses) participated. Among them, 30% of physicians (95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-35%) and 16.6% of nurses (95% CI 12%-21%) reported that at least 1 of the incidents occurred daily or weekly in their offices (c2 16.1, P <.001). On average, each responder reported a total of 92 incidents during the preceding 12 months (mean of 117 events for physicians, mean of 66 events for nurses; P <.001). Documentation failure was reported most frequently.The highest fraction of last occurrences with severe injury or death was for diagnostic errors (4.1%). Unadjusted for caseload, staff working in medical centers reported higher frequencies of several incidents. The frequency-harm matrix suggests that triage by nurse at initial contact, diagnostic errors, medication errors, failure to monitor patients after medical procedures, and test or intervention errors should be prioritized for action. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a supplemental approach to identification of safety threats in primary care. Many incidents occur regularly and are highly relevant for healthcare professionals' daily work.The results offer guidance on setting priorities for patient safety in primary care.

Threats to patient safety in the primary care office: concerns of physicians and nurses.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about primary care professionals' concerns about risks to patient safety. AIM: To identify threats to patient safety in the primary care office from the perspective of physicians and nurses. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey; participants were asked to name and rank threats to safety they personally were most concerned about. SETTING: Physicians and nurses working in primary care offices in Switzerland. METHODS: Verbatim reports were analysed under an inductive content-analysis framework. Coded threats were quantitatively analysed in terms of frequency and prioritisation. Differences between physicians and nurses were analysed. RESULTS: Of 1260 invited individuals, 630 responded to the survey and 391 (31%) described 936 threats to patient safety. The coding system included 29 categories organised in 5 themes. Agreement of coders was good (kappa = 0.87, CI = 0.86-0.87). Safety of medication (8.8%), triage by nurses (7.2%) and drug interactions (6.8%) were the threats cited most frequently. Errors in diagnosis (OR = 0.21, CI 0.09-0.47, p <0.001), drug interactions (OR = 0.10, CI 0.04-0.25, p <0.001) and compliance of patients (OR = 0.28, CI 0.08-0.96, p = 0.044) were more likely to be cited by physicians. X-rays (OR = 3.34, CI 1.04-10.71, p = 0.043), confusion of patients or records (OR = 3.28, CI 1.55-6.94, p = 0.002), hygiene (OR = 3.21, CI1.12-9.19, p = 0.030), safety of office rooms (OR = 6.70, CI 1.46-30.73, p = 0.014), and confidentiality (OR = 7.38, CI 1.63-33.50, p = 0.010) were more likely to be described by nurses. CONCLUSION: Physicians and nurses are concerned about diverse threats to patient safety in primary care. Involving both groups in detection and analysis of risks in medical offices seems a valuable strategy to improve collaboration and safety.