• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of qualsafetyQuality and Safety in Health CareCurrent TOCInstructions for authors
Qual Saf Health Care. Dec 2003; 12(6): 443–447.
PMCID: PMC1758031

Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors

Abstract

Objective: To describe a classification of errors and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a method for recording staff reported errors in general practice.

Design: An iterative process in a pilot practice was used to develop a classification of errors. This was incorporated in an anonymous self-report form which was then used to collect information on errors during June 2002. The acceptability of the reporting process was assessed using a self-completion questionnaire.

Setting: UK general practice.

Participants: Ten general practices in the North East of England.

Main outcome measures: Classification of errors, frequency of errors, error rates per 1000 appointments, acceptability of the process to participants.

Results: 101 events were used to create an initial error classification. This contained six categories: prescriptions, communication, appointments, equipment, clinical care, and "other" errors. Subsequently, 940 errors were recorded in a single 2 week period from 10 practices, providing additional information. 42% (397/940) were related to prescriptions, although only 6% (22/397) of these were medication errors. Communication errors accounted for 30% (282/940) of errors and clinical errors 3% (24/940). The overall error rate was 75.6/1000 appointments (95% CI 71 to 80). The method of error reporting was found to be acceptable by 68% (36/53) of respondents with only 8% (4/53) finding the process threatening.

Conclusion: We have developed a classification of errors and described a practical and acceptable method for reporting them that can be used as part of the process of risk management. Errors are common and, although all have the potential to lead to an adverse event, most are administrative.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (165K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Helmreich RL. On error management: lessons from aviation. BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):781–785. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Barach P, Small SD. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):759–763. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Rubin G. Medical errors. Terminology of "error" is important. BMJ. 2001 Jun 9;322(7299):1422–1422. [PubMed]
  • Sheikh A, Hurwitz B. Setting up a database of medical error in general practice: conceptual and methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Jan;51(462):57–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Wilson Tim, Sheikh Aziz. Enhancing public safety in primary care. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):584–587. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Elder Nancy C, Dovey Susan M. Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: a synthesis of the literature. J Fam Pract. 2002 Nov;51(11):927–932. [PubMed]
  • Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991 Feb 7;324(6):370–376. [PubMed]
  • Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust. 1995 Nov 6;163(9):458–471. [PubMed]
  • Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ. 2001 Mar 3;322(7285):517–519. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fischer G, Fetters MD, Munro AP, Goldman EB. Adverse events in primary care identified from a risk-management database. J Fam Pract. 1997 Jul;45(1):40–46. [PubMed]
  • Bhasale AL, Miller GC, Reid SE, Britt HC. Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident-monitoring study. Med J Aust. 1998 Jul 20;169(2):73–76. [PubMed]
  • Sandars John, Esmail Aneez. The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies. Fam Pract. 2003 Jun;20(3):231–236. [PubMed]
  • Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):768–770. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Leape LL. Why should we report adverse incidents? J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Feb;5(1):1–4. [PubMed]
  • Allnutt MF. Human factors in accidents. Br J Anaesth. 1987 Jul;59(7):856–864. [PubMed]
  • Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Coupland C, Hammersley V, Wilson A. Do single handed practices offer poorer care? Cross sectional survey of processes and outcomes. BMJ. 2001 Aug 11;323(7308):320–323. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Dovey SM, Meyers DS, Phillips RL, Jr, Green LA, Fryer GE, Galliher JM, Kappus J, Grob P. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Sep;11(3):233–238. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Runciman WB, Helps SC, Sexton EJ, Malpass A. A classification for incidents and accidents in the health-care system. J Qual Clin Pract. 1998 Sep;18(3):199–211. [PubMed]
  • Andrews LB, Stocking C, Krizek T, Gottlieb L, Krizek C, Vargish T, Siegler M. An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care. Lancet. 1997 Feb 1;349(9048):309–313. [PubMed]

Articles from Quality & Safety in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...