Mix of methods needed to find problems in general practice
Author Information
Author(s): Wetzels Raymond, Wolters René, van Weel Chris, Wensing Michel
Primary Institution: Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
Hypothesis
This study aimed to compare five methods in general practice for identifying adverse events.
Conclusion
A mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice.
Supporting Evidence
- A total of 68 events were identified using these methods.
- The patient survey accounted for the highest number of events.
- No overlap between the methods was detected.
Takeaway
Doctors and patients need to work together to find mistakes in healthcare, and using different ways to look for problems helps find more issues.
Methodology
A prospective observational study comparing five methods for identifying adverse events in general practice.
Potential Biases
The study may have underestimated the number of adverse events due to reliance on self-reporting and the subjective nature of identifying events.
Limitations
The number and type of adverse events depended on the individual who registered them, and the study may not have captured all events.
Participant Demographics
Approximately 8250 patients registered with two practices, with a focus on adults, particularly women over 50 years old.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website