Search

In the United Kingdom, undertaking continuing professional development (CPD) is required for revalidation with regulatory authorities for general practitioners, general practice nurses and registered pharmacy staff – pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. A survey of CPD preferences and activities of these four professions has been published and this paper focuses on one qualitative question in the survey: 'Please describe any changes that you anticipate in the way in which you will undertake CPD over the next 12 months.' Responses were analysed using content analysis, then codes and themes were developed into a coding framework. 1,159 respondents provided comments to the question and five themes were identified: options for learning, time, appraisal and revalidation, people in transition and use of technology. There was a desire for face-to-face courses, for interactive learning and for variety of learning methods. Respondents valued learning with others and Practice-Based Small Group Learning was considered to be flexible and promoted inter-professional learning and socialisation. Lack of time for learning was seen as a barrier for respondents. Respondents considered that CPD was needed to support them as their roles developed in primary healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To report the implementation of a trigger review method (TRM) in primary care, with a particular focus on its impact on patient safety-related findings., Design: Cross-sectional structured review of random samples (n=25) of electronic records of 'high-risk' patient groups conducted twice per year (each for a retrospective review period of 3 months)., Setting: 274 general practices in two regions of Scotland., Intervention: Contractual incentivisation of TRM implementation., Main Outcome Measures: Practice participation rate; characteristics of patient safety incidents (PSIs), for example, their prevalence, type, perceived severity and preventability; and actions or intended actions undertaken during and after trigger reviews., Results: 274 of 318 eligible practices (86.2%) returned 536 TRM Summary Reports, which outlined findings from reviews of 13 351 electronic patient records. 1887 (14.1%) PSIs were recorded, with a mean of 3.5 (536/1887) per Summary Report (SD±1.6). Of these, 830 (44.0%) were judged to have caused mild to moderate harm, with 262 (13.9%) cases resulting in more severe harm. A total of 852 PSIs (46.2%) were rated as preventable or potentially preventable. In 459 Summary Reports (85.6%), reviewers indicated implementing one or more improvement actions during the actual TRM process; and 2177 actions after completion of the TRM process (mean 4.1 (SD±3.3) actions per review)., Conclusions: The great majority of clinician reviewers 'successfully' applied the TRM, uncovering important but previously undetected PSIs, which prompted care teams to take action during and after the trigger reviews. The method and data generated have the potential to drive improvements in related care processes at the practice, regional and national health system level. TRM arguably increased 'ownership' of the safety challenge and clinician engagement in implementing their solutions to specific problems identified. Our results suggest that the TRM has potential as a feasible, pragmatic approach to improving primary care safety and quality., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)