Sarah P. Slight

Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUNDnDescription of safety problems and harm in general practices has previously relied on information from health professionals, with scarce attention paid to experiences of patients.nnnAIMnTo examine patient-reported experiences and outcomes of patient safety in primary care.nnnDESIGN AND SETTINGnCross-sectional study in 45 general practices across five regions in the north, centre, and south of England.nnnMETHODnA version of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 6736 patients. Main outcome measures included practice activation (what a practice does to create a safe environment); patient activation (how proactive are patients in ensuring safe healthcare delivery); experiences of safety events (safety errors); outcomes of safety (harm); and overall perception of safety (how safe patients rate their practice).nnnRESULTSnQuestionnaires were returned by 1244 patients (18.4%). Scores were high for practice activation (mean [standard error] = 80.4 out of 100 [2.0]) and low for patient activation (26.3 out of 100 [2.6]). Of the patients, 45% reported experiencing at least one safety problem in the previous 12 months, mostly related to appointments (33%), diagnosis (17%), patient provider communication (15%), and coordination between providers (14%). Twenty-three per cent of the responders reported some degree of harm in the previous 12 months. The overall assessment of level of safety of practices was generally high (86.0 out of 100 [16.8]).nnnCONCLUSIONnPriority areas for patient safety improvement in general practices in England include appointments, diagnosis, communication, coordination, and patient activation.

An International Evaluation of Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts That Should be Non-Interruptive in U.K. and U.S. Settings.

s from the 37th Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine “A ONE-STOP SHOP:” PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF DIABETES GROUP VISITS IN THE SAFETY NET CLINIC SETTING Arshiya A. Baig; Amanda Benitez; Amanda Campbell; Cynthia T. Schaefer; Loretta J. Heuer; Michael T. Quinn; Deborah L. Burnet; Marshall Chin. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; MidWest Clinicians’ Network, Lansing, MI; University of Evansville, Evansville, IN; North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. (Tracking ID #1934849) BACKGROUND: Diabetes group visits, shared appointments in which patients with diabetes receive self-management education in a group setting and have a medical visit, are an innovative and promising way to deliver diabetes care. The group visit model may be especially promising in safety net clinics where many patients with diabetes in underserved settings receive their care. However, little is known about safety net providers’ perceptions of diabetes group visits in the community health center setting. METHODS: The research team conducted site visits at community health centers across the Midwest to assess their experiences in providing diabetes group visits. Site visits were conducted at centers that had implemented diabetes group visits in the past or currently had them. Two members of the research team interviewed health center personnel at each site regarding their diabetes group visit program. Health center personnel included chief executive officers, medical and nursing directors, care coordinators, physicians, nurses, physician assistants, diabetes educators, mental health professionals, dietitians, medical assistants, pharmacists, and other recommended staff members who were familiar with the diabetes group visits at the site. Interviewees were asked about the benefits of having diabetes group visits at their site. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Systematic qualitative analysis techniques were used to identify the range and consistency of opinions and experiences across interviewees. RESULTS: The research team visited five health center sites across four states in the Midwest and conducted a total of 26 interviews with health center personnel. One site was rural, three were urban, and one was suburban. Health center personnel noted many benefits of group visits to the health center, providers, and patients. The benefits of group visits to the health center included an alignment of the group visit model with the mission of becoming a patient centered medical home, the ability to bill for group visits, and an efficient way to improve guideline-driven care for patients. Provider benefits from group visits included boost to provider morale, opportunities to collaborate with multidisciplinary colleagues, and having more time to focus on other medical concerns during patient’s routine follow-up visits. Patients derived many benefits, including receiving education and medical care in a single appointment, e.g. “the one-stop shop” or “best bang for your buck,” the opportunity to obtain social support and enhanced motivation through peers, and the potential to improve their clinical outcomes by attending group visits. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes group visits can offer many unique benefits to safety net clinics by providing patient-centered care, boosting provider morale, increasing multidisciplinary collaboration, and offering patients the convenience of combining an educational session with a primary care appointment. Further studies need to assess best practices in implementing group visits in health centers and assess their impact on patient outcomes. “A PLACE AT THE TABLE:” EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS’ EXPERIENCES AND EXPECTATIONS FOR ACADEMIC-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS IN HIV/AIDS RESEARCH Stella Safo; Chinazo Cunningham; Alice Beckman; Joanna L. Starrels. Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY; Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY. (Tracking ID #1937992) BACKGROUND: The foundation of community based participatory research (CBPR) is collaboration between academic researchers and members of a given community. Community advisory boards (CABs) are one mechanism through which academic-community partnerships are formed, but current research about CAB members’ opinions on barriers to collaborations with academics is limited. This qualitative study examined CAB members’ expectations and experiences in working with academic researchers in the field of HIV/AIDS. METHODS: We conducted 10 semi-structured one-on-one interviews with individuals serving on a CAB for HIV-related research at an urban academic medical center. Participating CAB members were leaders of HIV/AIDS community organizations in Bronx, NY and had at least 5 years of experience working in the field of HIV/AIDS. Interview questions focused on participants’ current and previous experiences with academic research and researchers, trust in these relationships, and best practices for collaboration. Interviews were professionally transcribed and data was analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Transcript data were coded by two independent researchers using NVivo 10 software and analyzed in an iterative process to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: CAB members described positive aspects of inclusion on a CAB, including improved access to information about current HIV topics and the opportunity to help shape HIV research in their communities. However, CAB members also described negative previous interactions with researchers, and a lack of trust in researchers themselves or in the process of conducting research with academic institutions. A major reason for distrust was that power was perceived as unequal, SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACTS