↓ Skip to main content

Contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0052-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Giles, Maria Panagioti, Andrea Hernan, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Rebecca Lawton

Abstract

Organisations need to systematically identify contributory factors (or causes) which impact on patient safety in order to effectively learn from error. Investigations of error have tended to focus on taking a reactive approach to learning from error, mainly relying on incident-reporting systems. Existing frameworks which aim to identify latent causes of error rely almost exclusively on evidence from non-healthcare settings. In view of this, the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) was developed in the hospital setting. Eighty-five percent of healthcare contacts occur in primary care. In view of this, this review will build on the work that produced the YCFF, by examining the empirical evidence that relates to the contributory factors of error within a primary care setting. Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. The database search will be supplemented by additional search methodologies including citation searching and snowballing strategies which include reviewing reference lists and reviewing relevant journal table of contents, that is, BMJ Quality and Safety. Our search strategy will include search combinations of three key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies conducted in a primary care setting. They will include some description of the factors that contribute to patient safety. One reviewer (SG) will screen all the titles and abstracts, whilst a second reviewer will screen 50% of the abstracts. Two reviewers (SG and AH) will perform study selection, quality assessment and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), patient safety incident type and characteristics, practice characteristics and study outcomes. The review will summarise the literature relating to contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care. The findings from this review will provide an evidence-based contributory factors framework for use in the primary care setting. It will increase understanding of factors that contribute to patient safety incidents and ultimately improve quality of health care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 26 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#7,713,036
of 25,263,619 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,346
of 2,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,837
of 271,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#24
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,263,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 271,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.