↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patients’ evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: a cross-sectional study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x691085
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Kate S Marsden, Anthony J Avery, Brian G Bell, Umesh T Kadam, David Reeves, Sarah P Slight, Katherine Perryman, Jane Barnett, Ian Litchfield, Sally Thomas, Stephen M Campbell, Lucy Doos, Aneez Esmail, Jose M Valderas

Abstract

Description of safety problems and harm in general practices has previously relied on information from health professionals, with scarce attention paid to experiences of patients. To examine patient-reported experiences and outcomes of patient safety in primary care. Cross-sectional study in 45 general practices across five regions in the north, centre, and south of England. A version of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 6736 patients. Main outcome measures included 'practice activation' (what a practice does to create a safe environment); 'patient activation' (how proactive are patients in ensuring safe healthcare delivery); 'experiences of safety events' (safety errors); 'outcomes of safety' (harm); and 'overall perception of safety' (how safe patients rate their practice). Questionnaires were returned by 1244 patients (18.4%). Scores were high for 'practice activation' (mean [standard error] = 80.4 out of 100 [2.0]) and low for 'patient activation' (26.3 out of 100 [2.6]). Of the patients, 45% reported experiencing at least one safety problem in the previous 12 months, mostly related to appointments (33%), diagnosis (17%), patient provider communication (15%), and coordination between providers (14%). Twenty-three per cent of the responders reported some degree of harm in the previous 12 months. The overall assessment of level of safety of practices was generally high (86.0 out of 100 [16.8]). Priority areas for patient safety improvement in general practices in England include appointments, diagnosis, communication, coordination, and patient activation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 19%
Psychology 7 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,181,941
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#576
of 4,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,521
of 318,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#24
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.