A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Significant event analysis (SEA) is promoted as a team-based approach to enhancing patient safety through reflective learning. Evidence of SEA participation is required for appraisal and contractual purposes in UK general practice. A voluntary educational model in the west of Scotland enables general practitioners (GPs) and doctors-in-training to submit SEA reports for feedback from trained peers. We reviewed reports to identify the range of safety issues analysed, learning needs raised and actions taken by GP teams.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Content analysis of SEA reports submitted in an 18 month period between 2005 and 2007.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>191 SEA reports were reviewed. 48 described patient harm (25.1%). A further 109 reports (57.1%) outlined circumstances that had the potential to cause patient harm. Individual 'error' was cited as the most common reason for event occurrence (32.5%). Learning opportunities were identified in 182 reports (95.3%) but were often non-specific professional issues not shared with the wider practice team. 154 SEA reports (80.1%) described actions taken to improve practice systems or professional behaviour. However, non-medical staff were less likely to be involved in the changes resulting from event analyses describing patient harm (p < 0.05)</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study provides some evidence of the potential of SEA to improve healthcare quality and safety. If applied rigorously, GP teams and doctors in training can use the technique to investigate and learn from a wide variety of quality issues including those resulting in patient harm. This leads to reported change but it is unclear if such improvement is sustained.</p

External feedback in general practice: a focus group study of trained peer reviewers of significant event analyses

Background and aims  Peer feedback is well placed to play a key role in satisfying educational and governance standards in general practice. Although the participation of general practitioners (GPs) as reviewers of evidence will be crucial to the process, the professional, practical and emotional issues associated with peer review are largely unknown. This study explored the experiences of GP reviewers who make educational judgements on colleagues' significant event analyses (SEAs) in an established peer feedback system. Methods  Focus groups of trained GP peer reviewers in the west of Scotland. Interviews were taped, transcribed and analysed for content. Results  Consensus on the value of feedback in improving SEA attempts by colleagues was apparent, but there was disagreement and discomfort about making a dichotomous `satisfactory' or `unsatisfactory' judgement. Differing views on how peer feedback should be used to compliment the appraisal process were described. Some concern was expressed about professional and legal obligations to colleagues and to patients seriously harmed as a result of significant events. Regular training of peer reviewers using several different educational methods was thought essential in enhancing or maintaining their skills. Involvement of the participants in the development of the feedback instrument and the peer review system was highly valued and motivating. Conclusions  Acting as a peer reviewer is perceived by this group of GPs to be an important professional duty. However, the difficulties, emotions and tensions they experience when making professional judgements on aspects of colleagues' work need to be considered when developing a feasible and rigorous system of educational feedback. This is especially important if peer review is to facilitate the `external verification' of evidence for appraisal and governance