Development and evaluation of an intervention based on the provision of patient feedback to improve patient safety in Spanish primary healthcare centres: study protocol

Maria J Serrano-Ripoll, Joana Ripoll, Joan Llobera, Jose Maria Valderas, Guadalupe Pastor-Moreno, Antonio Olry de Labry Lima, Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Maria J Serrano-Ripoll, Joana Ripoll, Joan Llobera, Jose Maria Valderas, Guadalupe Pastor-Moreno, Antonio Olry de Labry Lima, Ignacio Ricci-Cabello

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the enormous potential for adverse events in primary healthcare (PHC), the knowledge about how to improve patient safety in this context is still sparse. We describe the methods for the development and evaluation of an intervention targeted at PHC professionals to improve patient safety in Spanish PHC centres.

Methods and analysis: The intervention will consist in using the patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care (PREOS-PC) survey to gather patient-reported experiences and outcomes concerning the safety of the healthcare patients receive in their PHC centres, and feed that information back to the PHC professionals to help them identify opportunities for safer healthcare provision. The study will involve three stages. Stage 1 (developing the intervention) will involve: (i) qualitative study with 40 PHC providers to optimise the acceptability and perceived utility of the proposed intervention; (ii) Spanish translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the PREOS-PC survey; (iii) developing the intervention components; and (iv) developing an online tool to electronically administrate PREOS-PC and automatically generate feedback reports to PHC centres. Stage 2 (piloting the intervention) will involve a 3-month feasibility (one group pre-post) study in 10 PHC centres (500 patients, 260 providers). Stage 3 (evaluating the intervention) will involve: (i) a 12-month, two-arm, two-level cluster randomised controlled trial (1248 PHC professionals within 48 PHC centres; with randomisation at the centre level in a 1:1 ratio) to evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient safety culture (primary outcome), patient-reported safety experiences and outcomes (using the PREOS-PC survey), and avoidable hospitalisations; (ii) qualitative study with 20 PHC providers to evaluate the acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention and identify implementation barriers.

Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Balearic Islands (CEI IB: 3686/18) with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

Trial registration number: NCT03837912; pre-results.

Keywords: health services; medical errors; patient safety; primary health care; quality in health care.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: IR-C and JMV co-developed the PREOS-PC questionnaire, which is now being licensed by Oxford Innovation Ltd.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Logic model of the proposed intervention. *Intervention logic model based on feedback intervention theory and the capability, opportunity and motivation-behaviour system. PREOS-PC, patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Stages for the development and evaluation of the proposed intervention. PHC, primary healthcare; PREOS-PC, patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trial timeline. *PREOS-PC, Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care. **MOSPSC, Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Provider reported patient safety culture.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Consort flow chart. ITT, intention to treat; PHC, primary healthcare.

References

    1. Vincent CA. Patient safety. 2nd edn Oxford, England: Wiley Blackwell, 2010.
    1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donalson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
    1. Panagioti M, Khan K, Keers RN, et al. . Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2019;51 10.1136/bmj.l4185
    1. Green LA, Fryer GE, Yawn BP, et al. . The ecology of medical care revisited. N Engl J Med 2001;344:2021–5. 10.1056/NEJM200106283442611
    1. Panesar SS, deSilva D, Carson-Stevens A, et al. . How safe is primary care? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:544–53. 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004178
    1. de Wet C, Bowie P. Patient safety and general practice: traversing the tightrope. Br J Gen Pract 2014;64:164–5. 10.3399/bjgp14X677716
    1. Slight SP, Howard R, Ghaleb M, et al. . The causes of prescribing errors in English general practices: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2013;63:e713–20. 10.3399/bjgp13X673739
    1. Mira JJ, Orozco-Beltran D, Perez-Jover V, et al. . Physician patient communication failure facilitates medication errors in older polymedicated patients with multiple comorbidities. Fam Pract 2013;30:56–63. 10.1093/fampra/cms046
    1. Ricci-Cabello I, Saletti-Cuesta L, Slight SP, et al. . Identifying patient-centred recommendations for improving patient safety in general practices in England: a qualitative content analysis of free-text responses using the patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care (PREOS-PC) questi. Health Expect 2017;20:961–72. 10.1111/hex.12537
    1. Slawomirski L, Auraaen A, Klazinga N. The economics of patient safety in primary and ambulatory care: flying blind. Paris, France: organization for economic co-operation and development, 2018. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Ministerio de Sanidad y Servicios Sociales e Igualdad Marco estratégico para La mejora de la atención primaria en España 2007 – 2012. in: Ministerio de Sanidad Servicios Sociales E Igualdad, editor. Spain: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales E Igualdad; 2012. P. 1-68. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Aguilera VM. Situación actual de la Atención Primaria en España (2014-2015). Spain: Organización Médica Colegial de España, 2016. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Aranaz-Andres JM, Aibar C, Limon R, et al. . A study of the prevalence of adverse events in primary healthcare in Spain. Eur J Public Health 2012;22:921–5. 10.1093/eurpub/ckr168
    1. Halligan M, Zecevic A. Safety culture in healthcare: a review of concepts, dimensions, measures and progress. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:338–43. 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.040964
    1. Corrigan JM. Crossing the quality chasm. building a better delivery system. Washington, DC: national Academy press, 2005. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Agra-Varela Y, Fernández-Maíllo M, Rivera-Ariza S, et al. . [European Union Network for Patient Safety and Quality of Care (PASQ). Development and preliminary results in Europe and in the Spanish National Health System]. Rev Calid Asist 2014;30:95–102.
    1. Esmail A, Valderas JM, Verstappen W, et al. . Developing a research agenda for patient safety in primary care. background, aims and output of the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract 2015;21:3–7. 10.3109/13814788.2015.1043122
    1. Lorincz CY, Drazen E, Sokol PE, et al. . Research in ambulatory patient safety 2000–2010: a 10-year review. Chicago IL: American Medical association, 2011. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Shekelle PG, Sarkar U, Shojania K, et al. . AHRQ comparative effectiveness technical Briefs. patient safety in ambulatory settings. Rockville (MD): agency for healthcare research and quality (US), 2016. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. World Health Organization World Alliance for patient safety progress report 2006-2007: World Health organization. patient safety, 2008. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD Guide to improving patient safety in primary care settings by engaging patients and families. content last reviewed, 2018. Available: [Accessed Sep 2019].
    1. Hor S-yin, Godbold N, Collier A, et al. . Finding the patient in patient safety. Health 2013;17:567–83. 10.1177/1363459312472082
    1. Donaldson LJ. The wisdom of patients and families: ignore it at our peril. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:603–4. 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004573
    1. Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group Patient engagement in patient safety: a framework for the NHS. may, 2016. Available: [Accessed Sep 2019].
    1. Valderas JM, Ricci-Cabello I, Prazopa-Prasier N, et al. . Safer primary care: Patient engagement - Technical Series on Safer Primary Care. Geneva: WHO, 2016. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Lawton R, O'Hara JK, Sheard L, et al. . Can patient involvement improve patient safety? a cluster randomised control trial of the patient reporting and action for a safe environment (PRASE) intervention. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:622–31. 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005570
    1. Haines S, Warren T. Staff and patient involvement in benchmarking to improve care: Sue Haines and Tracey Warren outline an initiative to develop a toolkit using essence of care benchmarks to evaluate services and review processes. Nurs Manag 2011;18:22–5.
    1. Itoh K, Andersen HB, Madsen MD, et al. . Patient views of adverse events: comparisons of self-reported healthcare staff attitudes with disclosure of accident information. Appl Ergon 2006;37:513–23. 10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.010
    1. Trier H, Valderas JM, Wensing M, et al. . Involving patients in patient safety programmes: a scoping review and consensus procedure by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract 2015;21:56–61. 10.3109/13814788.2015.1043729
    1. Ricci-Cabello I, Gonçalves DC, Rojas-García A, et al. . Measuring experiences and outcomes of patient safety in primary care: a systematic review of available instruments. Fam Pract 2015;32:106–19. 10.1093/fampra/cmu052
    1. Ricci-Cabello I, Avery AJ, Reeves D, et al. . Measuring Patient Safety in Primary Care: The Development and Validation of the "Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care" (PREOS-PC). Ann Fam Med 2016;14:253–61. 10.1370/afm.1935
    1. Salema NE, Gangannagaripalli J, Mounce L, et al. . The development of an online patient safety questionnaire for primary care – the patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire. project report. United Kingdom: Exeter University, 2019.
    1. Brown B, Gude WT, Blakeman T, et al. . Clinical performance feedback intervention theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Implement Sci 2019;14 10.1186/s13012-019-0883-5
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337 10.1136/bmj.a1655
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. . Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (pro) measures: report of the ISPOR Task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005;8:94–104. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
    1. Van Someren M, Barnard Y, Sandberg J. The think aloud method: a practical approach to modelling cognitive. London: Academic Press, 1994.
    1. Boyce MB, Browne JP. Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res 2013;22:2265–78. 10.1007/s11136-013-0390-0
    1. Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K, et al. . Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Health Services and Delivery Research 2017;5:1–280. 10.3310/hsdr05020
    1. World Health Organization Technical series on safer primary care, 2017. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. United States of America Agency for health research and Quality- Afhra, 2018. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. CRaDIS C. LINNEAUS Euro -PC report summary, 2014. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Silvestre-Busto C, Torijano-Casalengua ML, Olivera-Canadas G, et al. . [Adaptation of the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (MOSPSC) tool]. Rev Calid Asist 2015;30:24–30.
    1. Torijano-Casalengua ML, Olivera-Canadas G, Astier-Pena MP, et al. . [Validation of a questionnaire to assess patient safety culture in Spanish Primary Health Care professionals]. Aten primaria 2013;45:21–37.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. United States of America: Oxford University Press, 2015.
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
    1. Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis. United States of America: Sage, 2011.
    1. Variaciones en la Práctica Médica (VPM) Zaragoza (España): Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud - Instituto Investigación Sanitaria Aragón. Angulo Pueyo E, Ridao Lopez M, Martínez Lizaga N, Seral Rodríguez M, Bernal-Delgado E, por el grupo Atlas VPM. Código CIE-9 Hospitalizaciones Potencialmente Evitables, 2015. Available: [Accessed Sep 2019].
    1. World Health Organization Manual of the International classification of diseases, injuries, and causes of death. CIE-9. 9th ED. Geneva: who, 1977. Available: [Accessed Apr 2019].
    1. Ricci-Cabello I, Marsden KS, Avery AJ, et al. . Patients’ evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract 2017;67:e474–82. 10.3399/bjgp17X691085
    1. Dominguez-Berjon MF, Borrell C, Cano-Serral G, et al. . Constructing a deprivation index based on census data in large Spanish cities (the Medea project). Gac Sanit 2008;22:179–87.
    1. Schwappach DLB. Review: engaging patients as vigilant partners in safety: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev 2010;67:119–48. 10.1177/1077558709342254
    1. Sheard L, Marsh C, O'Hara J, et al. . The patient feedback response framework – understanding why UK hospital staff find it difficult to make improvements based on patient feedback: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med 2017;178:19–27. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.005
    1. Ricci-Cabello I, Pons-Vigués M, Berenguera A, et al. . Patients’ perceptions and experiences of patient safety in primary care in England. Fam Pract 2016;33:535–42. 10.1093/fampra/cmw046
    1. Ricci-Cabello I, Goncalves DC, Campbell S, et al. . Patients’ Experiences of Patient Safety in Primary Care in England: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis : 42 North American primary care research Group (NAPCRG). New York: Annual Meeting, 2014.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi