Improving Patient Safety Culture in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety culture, described as shared values, attitudes and behavior of staff in a health-care organization, gained attention as a subject of study as it is believed to be related to the impact of patient safety improvements. However, in primary care, it is yet unknown, which effect interventions have on the safety culture. OBJECTIVES: To review literature on the use of interventions that effect patient safety culture in primary care. METHODS: Searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO on March 4, 2013. Terms defining safety culture were combined with terms identifying intervention and terms indicating primary care. Inclusion followed if the intervention effected patient safety culture, and effect measures were reported. RESULTS: The search yielded 214 articles from which two were eligible for inclusion. Both studies were heterogeneous in their interventions and outcome; we present a qualitative summary. One study described the implementation of an electronic medical record system in general practices as part of patient safety improvements. The other study facilitated 2 workshops for general practices, one on risk management and another on significant event audit. Results showed signs of improvement, but the level of evidence was low because of the design and methodological problems. CONCLUSIONS: These studies in general practice provide a first understanding of improvement strategies and their effect in primary care. As the level of evidence was low, no clear preference can be determined. Further research is needed to help practices make an informed choice for an intervention.

Improving patient safety culture in general practice: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: When improving patient safety a positive safety culture is key. As little is known about improving patient safety culture in primary care, this study examined whether administering a culture questionnaire with or without a complementary workshop could be used as an intervention for improving safety culture. AIM: To gain insight into how two interventions affected patient safety culture in everyday practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: After conducting a randomised control trial of two interventions, this was a qualitative study conducted in 30 general practices to aid interpretation of the previous quantitative findings. METHOD: Interviews were conducted at practice locations (n = 27) with 24 GPs and 24 practice nurses. The theory of communities of practice--in particular, its concepts of a domain, a community, and a practice--was used to interpret the findings by examining which elements were or were not present in the participating practices. RESULTS: Communal awareness of the problem was only raised after getting together and discussing patient safety. The combination of a questionnaire and workshop enhanced the interaction of team members and nourished team feelings. This shared experience also helped them to understand and develop tools and language for daily practice. CONCLUSION: In order for patient safety culture to improve, the safety culture questionnaire was more successful when accompanied by a practice workshop. Initial discussion and negotiation of shared goals during the workshop fuelled feelings of coherence and belonging to a community wishing to learn about enhancing patient safety. Team meetings and day-to-day interactions enhanced further liaison and sharing, making patient safety a common and conscious goal.

Effects of patient safety culture interventions on incident reporting in general practice: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A constructive safety culture is essential for the successful implementation of patient safety improvements. AIM: To assess the effect of two patient safety culture interventions on incident reporting as a proxy of safety culture. DESIGN AND SETTING: A three-arm cluster randomised trial was conducted in a mixed method study, studying the effect of administering a patient safety culture questionnaire (intervention I), the questionnaire complemented with a practice-based workshop (intervention II) and no intervention (control) in 30 general practices in the Netherlands. METHOD: The primary outcome, the number of reported incidents, was measured with a questionnaire at baseline and a year after. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial model. Secondary outcomes were quality and safety indicators and safety culture. Mixed effects linear regression was used to analyse the culture questionnaires. RESULTS: The number of incidents increased in both intervention groups, to 82 and 224 in intervention I and II respectively. Adjusted for baseline number of incidents, practice size and accreditation status, the study showed that practices that additionally participated in the workshop reported 42 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.81 to 177.50) times more incidents compared to the control group. Practices that only completed the questionnaire reported 5 (95% CI = 1.17 to 25.49) times more incidents. There were no statistically significant differences in staff perception of patient safety culture at follow-up between the three study groups. CONCLUSION: Educating staff and facilitating discussion about patient safety culture in their own practice leads to increased reporting of incidents. It is beneficial to invest in a team-wise effort to improve patient safety.

Exploring patient safety culture in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore perceptions of safety culture in nine different types of primary care professions and to study possible differences. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Three hundred and thirteen practices from nine types of primary care profession groups in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Professional staff from primary care practices. Nine professions participated: dental care, dietetics, exercise therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, midwifery, anticoagulation clinics, skin therapy and speech therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptions of seven patient safety culture dimensions were measured: 'open communication and learning from error', 'handover and teamwork', 'adequate procedures and working conditions', 'patient safety management', 'support and fellowship', 'intention to report events' and 'organizational learning'. Dimension means per profession were presented, and multilevel analyses were used to assess differences between professions. Also the so-called patient safety grade was self-reported. RESULTS: Five hundred and nineteen practices responded (response rate: 24%) of which 313 (625 individual questionnaires) were included for analysis. Overall, patient safety culture was perceived as being positive. Occupational therapy and anticoagulation therapy deviated most from other professions in a negative way, whereas physiotherapy deviated the most in a positive way. In addition, most professions graded their patient safety as positive (mean = 4.03 on a five-point scale). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patient safety culture in Dutch primary care professions on average is perceived positively. Also, it revealed variety between professions, indicating that a customized approach per profession group might contribute to successful implementation of safety strategies.

Measuring safety culture in Dutch primary care: psychometric characteristics of the SCOPE-PC questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety has been a priority in primary healthcare in the last years. The prevailing culture is seen as an important condition for patient safety in practice and several tools to measure patient safety culture have therefore been developed. Although Dutch primary care consists of different professions, such as general practice, dental care, dietetics, physiotherapy and midwifery, a safety culture questionnaire was only available for general practices. The purpose of this study was to modify and validate this existing questionnaire to a generic questionnaire for all professions in Dutch primary care. METHODS: A validated Dutch questionnaire for general practices was modified to make it usable for all Dutch primary care professions. Subsequently, this questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 2400 practices from eleven primary care professions. The instrument's factor structure, reliability and validity were examined using confirmatory and explorative factor analyses. RESULTS: 921 questionnaires were returned. Of these, 615 were eligible for factor analysis. The resulting SCOPE-PC questionnaire consisted of seven dimensions: 'open communication and learning from errors', 'handover and teamwork', 'adequate procedures and working conditions', 'patient safety management', 'support and fellowship', 'intention to report events' and 'organisational learning' with a total of 41 items. All dimensions had good reliability with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.70-0.90, and the questionnaire had a good construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: The SCOPE-PC questionnaire has sound psychometric characteristics for use by the different professions in Dutch primary care to gain insight in their safety culture.

Cluster randomized, controlled trial on patient safety improvement in general practice: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: An open, constructive safety culture is key in healthcare since it is seen as a main condition for patient safety. Studies have examined culture improvement strategies in hospitals. In primary care, however, not much is known about effective strategies to improve the safety culture yet. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of two patient safety culture interventions: a patient safety culture questionnaire solely, the SCOPE, or the SCOPE questionnaire combined with a patient safety workshop. The purpose of this paper is to describe the rationale and design of this trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The SCOPE Intervention Study is a cluster randomized, three-armed controlled trial, that will be conducted in 30 general practices in the Netherlands. Ten practices in the first intervention arm will complete the SCOPE questionnaire and are expected to draw and implement their own improvement initiatives based on a computerised feedback report. In the second intervention arm, staff of the ten practices also will be asked to complete the SCOPE questionnaire and in addition will be given a complementary workshop. This workshop is theoretical and interactive, educating staff and facilitating discussion, leading to a practice specific action plan for patient safety improvement. The results of the SCOPE questionnaire are incorporated in the workshop. The ten practices in the control arm continue care as usual. Baseline and follow-up measurements will be conducted with an implementation period of one year. The primary outcome will include the number of incidents reported and secondary several quality and safety indicators and the patient safety culture. Moreover, interviews will be conducted at follow-up to evaluate the implementation process of the intervention. DISCUSSION: Results of this study will give insight in the effect of administering a culture questionnaire or the questionnaire with a complementary workshop. This knowledge will aid implementation of patient safety tools and future research. Attention has been given to the strengths and limitations of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3277.