Makeham M A B, Stromer S, Bridges-Webb C, Mira M, Saltman D C, Cooper C, Kidd M R
Discipline of General Practice, 37A Booth Street, Balmain, New South Wales 2041, Australia.
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Feb;17(1):53-7. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.022491.
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.
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.
84 volunteers from a random sample of 320 GPs, previously shown to be representative of 4666 GPs in New South Wales, Australia.
Taxonomy, agreement of investigators coding, proportions of error types.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
分类法、调查人员编码的一致性、错误类型的比例。
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。
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。