Skip to main content

Low rate of adverse events recorded in English primary care

A study by Dr Carmen Tsang and colleagues at Imperial College London has found a low incidence of patient safety incidents recorded in general practice. The research, which was published by the British Journal of General Practice, measured the extent of patient safety incidents recorded in 74 763 patients at 457 English general practices between 1999 and 2008, and the patient characteristics associated with these adverse events.

Older patients, those with more comorbid diseases or who had more previous emergency admissions to hospital were at greater risk of complications of care. Dr Carmen Tsang, lead author of the paper, says “Our finding of a low incidence of patient harm in general practice supports previously published studies. To better understand these adverse events, we must also examine the healthcare interactions from which they originate, and consider how to reduce the incidents that are potentially preventable”.

Outcomes following adverse events, including emergency admissions and death, are important because they may be preventable. The low rate of recording of adverse events in primary care may reflect under-recording of safety incidents occurring in this setting. Routine recording of adverse events, may be less frequent and less precise than recording of chronic diseases. The reasons for the low rate of adverse events detected needs to be better understood, particularly if this rate is an under-estimation of the true extent of iatrogenic patient harm in primary care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...