• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

全科医疗中报告的患者安全事件:一种分类法。

Patient safety events reported in general practice: a taxonomy.

作者信息

Makeham M A B, Stromer S, Bridges-Webb C, Mira M, Saltman D C, Cooper C, Kidd M R

机构信息

Discipline of General Practice, 37A Booth Street, Balmain, New South Wales 2041, Australia.

出版信息

Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Feb;17(1):53-7. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.022491.

DOI:10.1136/qshc.2007.022491
PMID:18245220
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To develop a taxonomy describing patient safety events in general practice from reports submitted by a random representative sample of general practitioners (GPs), and to determine proportions of reported event types.

DESIGN

433 reports received by the Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study were analysed by three investigating GPs, classifying event types contained. Agreement between investigators was recorded as the taxonomy developed.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

84 volunteers from a random sample of 320 GPs, previously shown to be representative of 4666 GPs in New South Wales, Australia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Taxonomy, agreement of investigators coding, proportions of error types.

RESULTS

A three-level taxonomy resulted. At the first level, errors relating to the processes of healthcare (type 1; n = 365 (69.5%)) were more common than those relating to deficiencies in the knowledge and skills of health professionals (type 2; n = 160 (30.5%)). At the second level, five type 1 themes were identified: healthcare systems (n = 112 (21.3%)); investigations (n = 65 (12.4%)); medications (n = 107 (20.4%)); other treatments (n = 13 (2.5%)); and communication (n = 68 (12.9%)). Two type 2 themes were identified: diagnosis (n = 62 (11.8%)) and management (n = 98 (18.7%)). The third level comprised 35 descriptors of the themes. Good inter-coder agreement was demonstrated with an overall kappa score of 0.66. A least two out of three investigators independently agreed on event classification in 92% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed taxonomy for reported events in general practice provides a comprehensible tool for clinicians describing threats to patient safety, and could be built into reporting systems to remove difficulties arising from coder interpretation of events.

摘要

目的

根据全科医生(GP)随机代表性样本提交的报告,制定一种描述全科医疗中患者安全事件的分类法,并确定报告事件类型的比例。

设计

三名参与调查的全科医生对澳大利亚患者安全威胁(TAPS)研究收到的433份报告进行分析,对其中包含的事件类型进行分类。记录调查人员之间的一致性作为所制定的分类法。

设置与参与者

从320名全科医生的随机样本中选取84名志愿者,该样本先前已被证明可代表澳大利亚新南威尔士州的4666名全科医生。

主要观察指标

分类法、调查人员编码的一致性、错误类型的比例。

结果

形成了一个三级分类法。在第一级,与医疗保健过程相关的错误(类型1;n = 365(69.5%))比与卫生专业人员知识和技能缺陷相关的错误(类型2;n = 160(30.5%))更为常见。在第二级,确定了五个类型1主题:医疗保健系统(n = 112(21.3%));检查(n = 65(12.4%));药物(n = 107(20.4%));其他治疗(n = 13(2.5%));以及沟通(n = 68(12.9%))。确定了两个类型2主题:诊断(n = 62(11.8%))和管理(n = 98(18.7%))。第三级包括这些主题的35个描述符。编码员之间的一致性良好,总体kappa评分为0.66。在92%的病例中,三名调查人员中至少有两名独立就事件分类达成一致。

结论

所提出的全科医疗报告事件分类法为临床医生描述对患者安全的威胁提供了一个易于理解的工具,并可纳入报告系统以消除编码员对事件解释产生的困难。

相似文献

1
Patient safety events reported in general practice: a taxonomy.全科医疗中报告的患者安全事件:一种分类法。
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Feb;17(1):53-7. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.022491.
2
Lessons from the TAPS study-knowledge and skills errors.TAPS研究的经验教训——知识与技能错误
Aust Fam Physician. 2008 Mar;37(3):145-6.
3
Lessons from the TAPS study - errors relating to medical records.TAPS研究的经验教训——与医疗记录相关的错误
Aust Fam Physician. 2008 Apr;37(4):243-4.
4
Lessons from the TAPS study - management of medical emergencies.TAPS研究的经验教训——医疗紧急情况的管理
Aust Fam Physician. 2008 Jul;37(7):548-50.
5
Lessons from the TAPS study--recall and reminder systems.TAPS研究的经验教训——召回与提醒系统
Aust Fam Physician. 2008 Nov;37(11):923-4.
6
Lessons from the TAPS study - message handling and appointment systems.
Aust Fam Physician. 2008 Jun;37(6):438-9.
7
Reporting and classification of patient safety events in a cardiothoracic intensive care unit and cardiothoracic postoperative care unit.心胸重症监护病房和心胸外科术后护理病房中患者安全事件的报告与分类
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005 Oct;130(4):1137. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.06.003.
8
Lessons from the TAPS study - communication failures between hospitals and general practices.TAPS研究的经验教训——医院与全科医疗之间的沟通失误
Aust Fam Physician. 2008 Sep;37(9):735-6.
9
An international taxonomy for errors in general practice: a pilot study.全科医疗差错的国际分类法:一项试点研究。
Med J Aust. 2002 Jul 15;177(2):68-72. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04668.x.
10
Anatomy of a patient safety event: a pediatric patient safety taxonomy.一起患者安全事件的剖析:儿科患者安全分类法
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Dec;14(6):422-7. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.013573.

引用本文的文献

1
Leveraging Kaizen with Process Mining in Healthcare Settings: A Conceptual Framework for Data-Driven Continuous Improvement.在医疗环境中结合改善法与流程挖掘:一个数据驱动的持续改进概念框架
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Apr 19;13(8):941. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13080941.
2
A multifaceted risk management program to improve the reporting rate of patient safety incidents in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.一个多方面的风险管理计划,以提高初级保健中患者安全事件的报告率:一项集群随机对照试验。
BMC Prim Care. 2024 Jul 6;25(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02476-4.
3
Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.
应用患者安全分类法分析 COVID-19 大流行期间患者和临床医生报告的不良事件报告:一项混合方法研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Oct 14;23(1):234. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02057-6.
4
Defining avoidable healthcare-associated harm in prisons: A mixed-method development study.定义监狱中可避免的医疗保健相关伤害:一项混合方法发展研究。
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 15;18(3):e0282021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282021. eCollection 2023.
5
Assessing patient experience with patient safety in primary care: development and validation of the ASK-ME-questionnaire.评估初级保健中患者对患者安全的体验:ASK-ME 问卷的制定和验证。
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 6;12(4):e049237. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049237.
6
ASK ME!-Routine measurement of patient experience with patient safety in ambulatory care: A mixed-mode survey.在门诊护理中测量患者对患者安全的体验:一种混合模式调查。
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 1;16(12):e0259252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259252. eCollection 2021.
7
Email Consultations Between Patients and Doctors in Primary Care: Content Analysis.初级保健中患者与医生间的电子邮件咨询:内容分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 9;22(11):e18218. doi: 10.2196/18218.
8
Diagnostic error in the emergency department: learning from national patient safety incident report analysis.急诊科的诊断错误:从国家患者安全事件报告分析中学习。
BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Dec 4;19(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0289-3.
9
Building Usability Knowledge for Health Information Technology: A Usability-Oriented Analysis of Incident Reports.构建健康信息技术的可用性知识:基于可用性的事件报告分析。
Appl Clin Inform. 2019 May;10(3):395-408. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1691841. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
10
Processing discharge summaries in general practice: a qualitative interview study with GPs and practice managers.全科医疗中出院小结的处理:一项针对全科医生和诊所管理人员的定性访谈研究
BJGP Open. 2019 Jan 23;3(1):bjgpopen18X101625. doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen18X101625. eCollection 2019 Apr.