Search

Background: The number of individuals with a visual impairment in the UK was estimated a few years ago to be around 1.8 million. People can be visually impaired from birth, childhood, early adulthood or later in life. Those with visual impairment are subject to health inequities and increased risk for patient safety incidents in comparison to the general population. They are also known to be at an increased risk of experiencing medication errors compared to those without visual impairment. In view of this, this review aims to understand the issues of medication safety for VI people., Methods/design: Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. Our search strategy will include search combinations of two key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies. They will include studies that relate to both medication safety and visual impairment. Two reviewers (SG and LR) will screen all the titles and abstracts. SG, LR, RM, SCS and PL will perform study selection and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected will include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), medication safety incident type and characteristics., Discussion: The review will summarise the literature relating to medication safety and visual impairment., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Patients and carers should be active partners in patient safety with healthcare professionals and be empowered to use personalised approaches to identify safety concerns and work together to prevent them. This protocol paper details a study to examine the feasibility of a multicomponent intervention to involve patients and/or carers in patient safety in primary care in the UK., Methods and Analysis: This is a two-phase, non-randomised feasibility mixed methods pragmatic study of a patient safety guide for primary care (PSG-PC). 8 general practices will recruit 120 patient and/or carer participants. All patient and/or carer participants will receive the PSG-PC. It will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the PSG-PC in primary care settings in patients aged 18 years or older who attend appointments at general practice with health professionals four or more times per year as either patients or carers. It will identify secondary outcomes for improving patient safety, health status and patient empowerment, and reducing health service utilisation over 6 months between baseline and 6-month follow-ups. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients and practices will be needed. The study will be undertaken between January 2020 and September 2021., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service London-West London and Gene Therapy Advisory Committee Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/LO/1289). Research findings will be disseminated with participating general practices and shared in a range of different ways to engage different audiences, including presenting at international and national conferences, publishing in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and facilitating dissemination workshops within local communities with patients, carers and healthcare professionals., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN90222092., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Marginalised groups ('populations outside of mainstream society') experience severe health inequities, as well as increased risk of experiencing patient safety incidents. To date however no review exists to identify, map and analyse the literature in this area in order to understand 1) which marginalised groups have been studied in terms of patient safety research, 2) what the particular patient safety issues are for such groups and 3) what contributes to or is associated with these safety issues arising., Methods: Scoping review. Systematic searches were performed across six electronic databases in September 2019. The time frame for searches of the respective databases was from the year 2000 until present day., Results: The searches yielded 3346 articles, and 67 articles were included. Patient safety issues were identified for fourteen different marginalised patient groups across all studies, with 69% (n = 46) of the studies focused on four patient groups: ethnic minority groups, frail elderly populations, care home residents and low socio-economic status. Twelve separate patient safety issues were classified. Just over half of the studies focused on three issues represented in the patient safety literature, and in order of frequency were: medication safety, adverse outcomes and near misses. In total, 157 individual contributing or associated factors were identified and mapped to one of seven different factor types from the Framework of Contributory Factors Influencing Clinical Practice within the London Protocol. Patient safety issues were mostly multifactorial in origin including patient factors, health provider factors and health care system factors., Conclusions: This review highlights that marginalised patient groups are vulnerable to experiencing a variety patient safety issues and points to a number of gaps. The findings indicate the need for further research to understand the intersectional nature of marginalisation and the multi-dimensional nature of patient safety issues, for groups that have been under-researched, including those with mental health problems, communication and cognitive impairments. Such understanding provides a basis for working collaboratively to co-design training, services and/or interventions designed to remove or at the very least minimise these increased risks., Trial Registration: Not applicable for a scoping review.

Background: Multimorbidity, defined as the presence of two or more long-term conditions, is increasingly common in primary care, and patients with multimorbidity may face particular barriers to quality of care and increased safety risks due to the complexity of managing multiple conditions. Consistent with calls to directly involve service users in improving care, we aimed to use design materials to codesign new interventions to improve safety in primary care., Design: We drew on two established methods-accelerated experience-based codesign and the future workshop approach. We synthesized design materials based on research into the patient experience of safety and multimorbidity in primary care to enable both patients, service users and carers, and primary health-care professionals to propose interventions to improve care., Results: Both patients and professionals prioritized polypharmacy as a threat to safety. Their recommendations for supportive interventions were consistent with Burden of Treatment theory, emphasizing the limited capacity of patients with multimorbidity and the need for services to proactively offer support to reduce the burden of managing complex treatment regimes., Discussion & Conclusions: The process was feasible and acceptable to participants, who valued the opportunity to jointly propose new interventions. The iterative workshop approach enabled the research team to better explore and refine the suggestions of attendees. Final recommendations included the need for accessible reminders to support medication adherence and medication reviews for particularly vulnerable patients conducted with pharmacists within GP practices., (© 2017 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In primary care, older patients with multimorbidity (two or more long-term conditions) are especially likely to experience patient safety incidents. Risks to safety in this setting arise as a result of patient, staff and system factors; particularly where these interact or fail to do so. Recent research and policy highlight the important contribution patients can make to improving safety. Older patients with multimorbidity may have the most to gain from increasing their involvement but before interventions can be developed to support them to improve their patient safety, more needs to be known about how this is threatened and how patients respond to perceived threats. We sought to identify and describe threats to patient safety in primary care among older people with multimorbidity, to provide a better understanding of how these are experienced and to inform the development of interventions to reduce risks to patient safety., Methods: Twenty-six older people, aged 65 or over, with multimorbidity were recruited to a longitudinal qualitative study. At baseline, data on their health and healthcare were collected through semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed thematically, using a framework developed from a previous synthesis of qualitative studies of patient safety in primary care., Results: Threats to patient safety were organised into six themes, across three domains of health and care. These encompassed all aspects of the patient journey, from access to everyday management. Across the journey, many issues arose due to poor communication, and uncoordinated care created extra burdens for patients and healthcare staff. Patients' sense of safety and trust in their care providers were especially threatened when they felt their needs were ignored, or when they perceived responses from staff as inappropriate or insensitive., Conclusions: For older patients with multimorbidity, patient safety is intrinsically linked to the challenges people face when managing health conditions, navigating the healthcare system, and negotiating care. We consider the implications of this for the development of interventions to reduce threats to patient safety. Potential patient-centred mechanisms include providing patients with more realistic expectations for primary care, and supporting them to communicate their needs and concerns more effectively.

Introduction: Patient safety research has tended to focus on hospital settings, although most clinical encounters occur in primary care, and to emphasize practitioner errors, rather than patients' own understandings of safety., Objective: To explore patients' understandings of safety in primary care., Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients recruited from general practices in northwest England. Participants were asked basic socio-demographic information; thereafter, topics were largely introduced by interviewees themselves. Transcripts were coded and analysed using NVivo10 (qualitative data software), following a process of constant comparison., Results: Thirty-eight people (14 men, 24 women) from 19 general practices in rural, small town and city locations were interviewed. Many of their concerns (about access, length of consultation, relationship continuity) have been discussed in terms of quality, but, in the interviews, were raised as matters of safety. Three broad themes were identified: (i) trust and psycho-social aspects of professional-patient relationships; (ii) choice, continuity, access, and the temporal underpinnings of safety; and (iii) organizational and systems-level tensions constraining safety., Discussion: Conceptualizations of safety included common reliance on a bureaucratic framework of accreditation, accountability, procedural rules and regulation, but were also individual and context-dependent. For patients, safety is not just a property of systems, but personal and contingent and is realized in the interaction between doctor and patient. However, it is the systems approach that has dominated safety thinking, and patients' individualistic and relational conceptualizations are poorly accommodated within current service organization., (© 2015 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This study explores the ways in which patients make sense of 'safety' in the context of primary medical care. Drawing on qualitative interviews with primary care patients, we reveal patients' conceptualisation of safety as fluid, contingent, multi-dimensional, and negotiated. Participant accounts drew attention to a largely invisible and inaccessible (but taken for granted) architecture of safety, the importance of psycho-social as well as physical dimensions and the interactions between them, informal strategies for negotiating safety, and the moral dimension of safety. Participants reported being proactive in taking action to protect themselves from potential harm. The somewhat routinised and predictable nature of the primary medical care consultation, which is very different from 'one off' inpatient spells, meant that patients were not passive recipients of care. Instead they had a stock of accumulated knowledge and experience to inform their actions. In addition to highlighting the differences and similarities between hospital and primary care settings, the study suggests that a broad conceptualisation of patient safety is required, which encompasses the safety concerns of patients in primary care settings., (© 2015 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL.)

Objective: Studies of patient safety in health care have traditionally focused on hospital medicine. However, recent years have seen more research located in primary care settings which have different features compared to secondary care. This study set out to synthesize published qualitative research concerning patient safety in primary care in order to build a conceptual model., Method: Meta-ethnography, an interpretive synthesis method whereby third order interpretations are produced that best describe the groups of findings contained in the reports of primary studies., Results: Forty-eight studies were included as 5 discrete subsets where the findings were translated into one another: patients' perspectives of safety, staff perspectives of safety, medication safety, systems or organisational issues and the primary/secondary care interface. The studies were focused predominantly on issues seen to either improve or compromise patient safety. These issues related to the characteristics or behaviour of patients, staff or clinical systems and interactions between staff, patients and staff, or people and systems. Electronic health records, protocols and guidelines could be seen to both degrade and improve patient safety in different circumstances. A conceptual reading of the studies pointed to patient safety as a subjective feeling or judgement grounded in moral views and with potentially hidden psychological consequences affecting care processes and relationships. The main threats to safety appeared to derive from 'grand' systems issues, for example involving service accessibility, resources or working hours which may not be amenable to effective intervention by individual practices or health workers, especially in the context of a public health system., Conclusion: Overall, the findings underline the human elements in patient safety primary health care. The key to patient safety lies in effective face-to-face communication between patients and health care staff or between the different staff involved in the care of an individual patient. Electronic systems can compromise safety when they override the opportunities for face-to-face communication. The circumstances under which guidelines or protocols are seen to either compromise or improve patient safety needs further investigation.

Introduction: Remote (digital and/or telephone) access and consultation models are being driven by national policy with the goal being that the National Health Service operate on a remote‐first (digital‐first) basis by 2029. Previous research has suggested that remote methods of access to care and consulting may act to widen health inequalities for certain patients and/or groups such as those from ethnic minorities. South Asian (SA) patients comprise the largest ethnic minority group in England. Understanding the experiences and needs of this group is critical to ensuring that general practice can deliver equitable, quality health care. Methods: Qualitative study. 37 participants (from Indian, Pakistani and/or Bangladeshi background) were recruited to take part in either in‐person preferred language focus groups or remote semistructured interviews in the English language. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes in the qualitative data. Findings: Three major interlinked themes were identified: (1) reduced access, (2) reduced patient choice and (3) quality and safety concerns. The findings highlight access issues split by (i) general issues with appointment access via any remote means and (ii) specific issues related to language barriers creating additional barriers to access and care. Some patients valued the convenience of remote access but also raised concerns regarding appointment availability and reduced patient choice. Face‐to‐face consultations were preferable but less available. The findings underscore how participants perceived remote care to be of lesser quality and less safe. Concerns were greatest for those with limited English proficiency (LEP), with the removal of non‐verbal aspects of communication and 'hands‐on' care leading to perceptions of reduced psycho‐social safety. Conclusion: SA patients' experiences of remote‐led primary care access and care delivery were negative with only a minority viewing it positively and for certain limited scenarios. Face‐to‐face models of care remain the preferred mode of consultation, particularly for those with LEP. Hybrid models of access offer patients the greatest choice, and are likely to meet the varying needs of the South‐Asian patient population going forwards. The remote first approach to primary care may be achievable as a service ideal, but its limitations need to be recognised and accounted for to ensure that primary care can be an equitable service, both now and in the future. Public Contribution: Members of the public were involved in all phases of research in the study. This included co‐working in partnership throughout the study including, reviewing patient‐facing documents, recruiting participants, data facilitation, translation work, interpretation of the data and co‐authors on this manuscript. The key to the success of our study was collaborative teamwork, which involved experienced members of the public with SA cultural knowledge working together with and integral to the research team for all components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite high level of health care need amongst people experiencing homelessness, poor access is a major concern. This is sometimes due to organisational and bureaucratic barriers, but also because they often feel stigmatised and treated badly when they do seek health care. The COVID-19 pandemic and the required social distancing measures have caused unprecedented disruption and change for the organisation of primary care, particularly for people experiencing homelessness. Against this backdrop there are many questions to address regarding whether the recent changes required to deliver services to people experiencing homelessness in the context of COVID-19 will help to address or compound problems in accessing care and inequalities in health outcomes. Methods: An action led and participatory research methodology will be employed to address the study objectives. Interviews with people experiencing homelessness were will be conducted by a researcher with lived experience of homelessness. Researchers with lived experience are able to engage with vulnerable communities in an empathetic, non-judgemental way as their shared experience promotes a sense of trust and integrity, which in turn encourages participation in research and may help people speak more openly about their experience. The experiences of health professionals and stakeholders delivering and facilitating care for people experiencing homelessness during the pandemic will also be explored. Discussion: It is important to explore whether recent changes to the delivery of primary care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic compromise the safety of people experiencing homelessness and exacerbate health inequalities. This could have implications for how primary healthcare is delivered to those experiencing homelessness not only for the duration of the pandemic but in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Doctor-patient continuity is popular with patients and practitioners, and is associated with better outcomes; however, changes in policy and practice organisation have diminished its scope. Although there has been some discussion of safety implications from professionals' perspective, patients' views remain largely unexplored. Aim To explore patients' understanding of safety in primary care. Design and setting An interview-based study with patients from general practices in the northwest of England. Method Patients were recruited from five general practices through patient participation groups and posters in waiting rooms, with further participants recruited through snowballing techniques until no new themes emerged. In-depth interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Anonymised transcripts were coded and analysed inductively. Emergent themes were discussed by the team. Results For patients, relationship continuity was not simply a matter of service quality but an important safety concern that offered greater psychosocial security than consultations with unfamiliar GPs. Relationship continuity enabled the GP to become a repository of information; acquire specialist knowledge of a patient's condition; become familiar with the patient's consulting behaviour; provide holistic care; and foster the development of trust. Patients were also aware of the risks: a false sense of security and lack of a fresh perspective. Their desire for continuity varied with the nature of their concerns, psychological vulnerability, and perception of GPs' qualities and skills. No one supported a return to imposed continuity. Conclusion Relationship continuity and choice of GP were important safety strategies, neither of which is adequately supported by recent policy changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]