Electronic versions

Documents

DOI

  • Rebecca Payne
    Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesUniversity of Oxford
  • Aileen Clarke
    University of Oxford
  • Nadia Swann
    University of Oxford
  • Jackie van Dael
    University of Oxford
  • Natassia Brenman
    University of Oxford
  • Rebecca Rosen
    Nuffield Trust
  • Adam Mackridge
    Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
  • Lucy Moore
    University of Oxford
  • Asli Kalin
    University of Oxford
  • Emma Ladds
    University of Oxford
  • Nina Hemmings
    Nuffield Trust
  • Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt
    University of Plymouth
  • Stuart Faulkner
    University of Oxford
  • Isabel Hanson
    University of Oxford
  • Sophie Spitters
    Queen Mary University of London
  • Sietse Wieringa
    University of Oxford
  • Francesca H Dakin
    University of Oxford
  • Sara E Shaw
    University of Oxford
  • Joseph Wherton
    University of Oxford
  • Richard Byng
    University of Plymouth
  • Laiba Husain
    University of Oxford
  • Trisha Greenhalgh
    University of Oxford

BACKGROUND: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them.

SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023.

METHODS: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts.

RESULTS: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions.

CONCLUSION: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Keywords

  • Humans, Patient Safety, Primary Health Care, Qualitative Research, United Kingdom, Longitudinal Studies, Triage, Prospective Studies, Female, Male, Retrospective Studies
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)573-586
Number of pages14
JournalBMJ Quality & Safety
Volume33
Issue number9
Early online date28 Nov 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Aug 2024
Externally publishedYes
View graph of relations