HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bowie, P Articles by Lough, M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bowie, P Articles by Lough, M

Awareness and analysis of a significant event by general practitioners: a cross sectional survey

¹ Department of Postgraduate Medical Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
² Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Correspondence to:
Mr P Bowie
NHS Education for Scotland, 2 Central Quay, 89 Hydepark Street, Glasgow G3 8BW, UK; paul.bowie{at}nes.scot.nhs.uk Objectives: To determine the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) were aware of a recent significant event and whether a structured analysis of this event was undertaken to minimise the perceived risk of recurrence.

Design: Cross sectional survey using a postal questionnaire.

Setting: Greater Glasgow primary care trust.

Participants: 466 principals in general practice from 188 surgeries.

Main outcome measures: GPs’ self-reported personal and practice characteristics, awareness of a recent significant event, participation in the structured analysis of the identified significant event, perceived chance of recurrence, forums for discussing and analysing significant events, and levels of primary care team involvement.

Results: Four hundred and sixty six GPs (76%) responded to the survey. GPs from single handed practices were less likely to respond than those in multi-partner training and non-training practices. 401 (86%) reported being aware of a recent significant event; lack of awareness was clearly associated with GPs from non-training practices. 219 (55%) had performed all the necessary stages of a structured analysis (as determined by the authors) of the significant event. GPs from training practices were more likely to report participation in the structured analysis of the recent event, to perceive the chance of this event recurring as "nil" or "very low", and to report significant event discussions taking place.

Conclusions: Most GPs were aware of a recent significant event and participated in the structured analysis of this event. The wider primary care team participated in the analysis process where GPs considered this involvement relevant. There is variation in the depth of and approach to significant event analysis within general practice, which may have implications for the application of the technique as part of the NHS quality agenda.

Keywords: adverse events; significant event analysis; clinical audit; general practice

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J McKay, P Bowie, L Murray, and M Lough Levels of agreement on the grading, analysis and reporting of significant events by general practitioners: a cross-sectional study Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2008; 17(5): 339 - 345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J McKay, D J Murphy, P Bowie, M-L Schmuck, M Lough, and K W Eva Development and testing of an assessment instrument for the formative peer review of significant event analyses Qual. Saf. Health Care, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 150 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Bowie, J McKay, E Dalgetty, and M Lough A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and educational peer assessment Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2005; 14(3): 185 - 189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]