Biomedical subjects

Meredith A B Makeham

Publications and source records attributed to Meredith A B Makeham.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study: incidence of reported errors in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of errors anonymously reported by general practitioners in NSW. DESIGN: The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study used anonymous reporting of errors by GPs via a secure web-based questionnaire for 12 months from October 2003. SETTING: General practices in NSW from three groupings: major urban centres (RRMA 1), large regional areas (RRMA 2-3), and rural and remote areas (RRMA 4-7). PARTICIPANTS: 84 GPs from a stratified random sample of the population of 4666 NSW GPs - 41 (49%) from RRMA 1, 22 (26%) from RRMA 2-3, and 21 (25%) from RRMA 4-7. Participants were representative of the GP source population of 4666 doctors in NSW (Medicare items billed, participant age and sex). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of error reports and incidence of reported errors per Medicare patient encounter item and per patient seen per year. RESULTS: 84 GPs submitted 418 error reports, claimed 490 864 Medicare patient encounter items, and saw 166 569 individual patients over 12 months. The incidence of reported error per Medicare patient encounter item per year was 0.078% (95% CI, 0.076%-0.080%). The incidence of reported errors per patient seen per year was 0.240% (95% CI, 0.235%-0.245%). No significant difference was seen in error reporting frequency between RRMA groupings. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study describing the incidence of GP-reported errors in a representative sample. When an anonymous reporting system is provided, about one error is reported for every 1000 Medicare items related to patient encounters billed, and about two errors are reported for every 1000 individual patients seen by a GP.

Family Practice↗

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↗