Authors: McKay J.; Bowie P.; Murray L.; Lough M.

Source: Quality in Primary Care, Volume 11, Number 3, 1 September 2003 , pp. 189-197(9)

Publisher: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd.

Abstract:

Background Significant event analysis (SEA) is a qualitative method of audit which allows healthcare teams to discuss specific events considered to be 'significant' in a formal and structured manner. Its use can potentially facilitate reflective learning and improve patient care and safety. There is pressure on general practitioners (GPs) to participate in SEA for various organisational and professional reasons, including revalidation. It is assumed that they possess the inherent abilities to perform this activity. However, there is limited knowledge about the attitudes of GPs towards SEA and any potential barriers to participation.

Aim To determine any perceived barriers to and beliefs about identifying and analysing significant events.

Method Cross-sectional questionnaire survey of 617 GPs in Greater Glasgow. Results A 76% response rate was achieved; 41% of respondents agreed it can be difficult to determine when an event is significant. In addition, 26% were uncertain how to analyse a significant event, 59% agreed there is a lack of time to discuss significant events, while 20% would require training in SEA. Fewer training practice respondents were in agreement with these attitudinal statements than colleagues from non-training practices (P < 0.001). Only 4% of GPs found SEA to be threatening, while 76% agreed it should be part of revalidation. Less experienced GPs were more likely to agree it can be difficult to determine when an event is significant (P = 0.008) and that they sometimes avoid dealing with events because of the complexity involved (P = 0.01).

Conclusions The findings showed that GPs are generally positive about the SEA technique and its inclusion as part of revalidation. However, educational issues have been raised for a number of GPs in terms of their current ability to identify a significant event and perform a structured analysis, which may have implications for the reporting of adverse incidents, appraisal and the clinical governance agenda.

Keywords: APPRAISAL; AUDIT; GENERAL PRACTICE; REVALIDATION; SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

Document Type: Research article

Publication date: 2003-09-01

More about this publication?

• Editorial Board
• Information for Authors
• Subscribe to this Title
• ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Medicine (General) ,  Public Health
• By this author: McKay J. ;  Bowie P. ;  Murray L. ;  Lough M.

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers