Biomedical subjects

Mary County

Publications and source records attributed to Mary County.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Impediments to higher degree training for Australian clinical researchers in general practice.

CONTEXT & OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based general practice requires skilled researchers in the field. This study explores the issues faced by professionals from the Australian general practice sector who were considering higher degree training in research. METHOD: Sixteen participants were interviewed by telephone during October 2002. All were purposively selected across general practice-related professions and had expressed an interest in research. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: (1) "The Specialist Gap"--a perceived lack of training options providing research skills that were relevant to general practice, particularly mixing quantitative and qualitative methods. (2) "Career Changes"--the ability to expand career opportunities through research was highly desirable, particularly the potential to combine clinical skills with population health roles. (3) "Career impediments"--perceptions of current degree options implied that their currency was limited by lack of career advancement. Course selection was often by affiliation and personal recommendation rather than career pathways yet students face large financial costs for little career gain. CONCLUSION: Training for clinical researchers in the Australian general practice sector may be limited by lack of career opportunities for graduates. If a stronger culture of research is to develop, career development strategies need to be further explored.

Australia↗

PubMed2002

An international taxonomy for errors in general practice: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an international taxonomy describing errors reported by general practitioners in Australia and five other countries. DESIGN AND SETTING: GPs in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States reported errors in an observational pilot study. Anonymous reports were electronically transferred to a central database. Data were analysed by Australian and international investigators. PARTICIPANTS: Non-randomly selected GPs: 23 in Australia, and between 8 and 20 in the other participating countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Error categories, and consequences. RESULTS: In Australia, 17 doctors reported 134 errors, compared with 301 reports by 63 doctors in the other five countries. The final taxonomy was a five-level system encompassing 171 error types. The first-level classification was "process errors" and "knowledge and skills errors". The proportion of errors in each of these primary groups was similar in Australia (79% process; 21% knowledge and skills) and the other countries (80% process; 20% knowledge and skills). Patient harm was reported in 32% of reports from Australia and 30% from other countries. Participants considered the harm "very serious" in 9% of Australian reports and 3% of other countries' reports. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that errors are likely to affect primary care patients in similar ways in countries with similar primary healthcare systems. Further comparative studies are required to improve our understanding of general practice error differences between Australia and other countries.

Australia↗