OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
BMC family practice
Jun 15, 2008;9 35.

Mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice: a prospective observational study.

Raymond Wetzels, René Wolters, Chris van Weel, Michel Wensing
Author Information
  1. Raymond Wetzels: Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Centre for Quality of Care Research, P,O, Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. M.Wensing@kwazo.umcn.nl
PMID: 18554418 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-9-35

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The validity and usefulness of incident reporting and other methods for identifying adverse events remains unclear. This study aimed to compare five methods in general practice.
METHODS: In a prospective observational study, with five general practitioners, five methods were applied and compared. The five methods were physician reported adverse events, pharmacist reported adverse events, patients' experiences of adverse events, assessment of a random sample of medical records, and assessment of all deceased patients.
RESULTS: A total of 68 events were identified using these methods. The patient survey accounted for the highest number of events and the pharmacist reports for the lowest number. No overlap between the methods was detected. The patient survey accounted for the highest number of events and the pharmacist reports for the lowest number.
CONCLUSION: A mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice.

References

  1. Lancet. 2007 Jan 13;369(9556):158-61 [PMID: 17223479]
  2. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001 Jul;52(1):85-91 [PMID: 11453894]
  3. N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 29;353(13):1405-9 [PMID: 16192489]
  4. Ann Fam Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;2(4):333-40 [PMID: 15335132]
  5. Br J Gen Pract. 1998 Jul;48(432):1409-12 [PMID: 9800400]
  6. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Apr;15(2):323-7 [PMID: 19335492]
  7. N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 12;347(24):1933-40 [PMID: 12477944]
  8. Ann Fam Med. 2004 Mar-Apr;2(2):125-9 [PMID: 15083851]
  9. Fam Pract. 2003 Jun;20(3):231-6 [PMID: 12738689]
  10. N Engl J Med. 2001 Jun 28;344(26):2021-5 [PMID: 11430334]
  11. N Engl J Med. 1991 Feb 7;324(6):377-84 [PMID: 1824793]
  12. Fam Pract. 1997 Apr;14(2):101-6 [PMID: 9137946]
  13. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2006 Mar;24(1):27-32 [PMID: 16464812]
  14. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;20(2):135-43 [PMID: 17341749]
  15. Fam Pract. 1998 Aug;15(4):308-18 [PMID: 9792345]
  16. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Oct;20(10):922-8 [PMID: 16191139]
  17. Health Expect. 2007 Sep;10(3):259-67 [PMID: 17678514]
  18. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Feb;16(1):40-4 [PMID: 17301203]
  19. Med J Aust. 2002 Jul 15;177(2):68-72 [PMID: 12098341]
  20. Med Care. 1998 Jun;36(6):851-67 [PMID: 9630127]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Child, Preschool
Death Certificates
Family Practice
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Audit
Medical Errors
Medical Records
Medication Errors
Middle Aged
Risk Management
Surveys and Questionnaires
Comparative Study Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0eventsmethodsadversefivegeneralnumberstudypharmacistpracticeprospectiveobservationalreportedassessmentpatientsurveyaccountedhighestreportslowestneededidentifyBACKGROUND:validityusefulnessincidentreportingidentifyingremainsunclearaimedcompareMETHODS:practitionersappliedcomparedphysicianpatients'experiencesrandomsamplemedicalrecordsdeceasedpatientsRESULTS:total68identifiedusingoverlapdetectedCONCLUSION:mixMixpractice:

Similar Articles

Cited By