Qualitative evaluation of the Safety and Improvement in Primary Care (SIPC) pilot collaborative in Scotland: perceptions and experiences of participating care teams

Bowie, P., Halley, L., Blamey, A., Gillies, J. and Houston, N. (2016) Qualitative evaluation of the Safety and Improvement in Primary Care (SIPC) pilot collaborative in Scotland: perceptions and experiences of participating care teams. BMJ Open, 6(1), e009526. (doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009526) (PMID:26826149) (PMCID:PMC473519)

[img]
Preview
Text
117149.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

928kB

Abstract

Objectives: To explore general practitioner (GP) team perceptions and experiences of participating in a large-scale safety and improvement pilot programme to develop and test a range of interventions that were largely new to this setting. Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed thematically. Subjects and setting: Purposive sample of multiprofessional study participants from 11 GP teams based in 3 Scottish National Health Service (NHS) Boards. Results: 27 participants were interviewed. 3 themes were generated: (1) programme experiences and benefits, for example, a majority of participants referred to gaining new theoretical and experiential safety knowledge (such as how unreliable evidence-based care can be) and skills (such as how to search electronic records for undetected risks) related to the programme interventions; (2) improvements to patient care systems, for example, improvements in care systems reliability using care bundles were reported by many, but this was an evolving process strongly dependent on closer working arrangements between clinical and administrative staff; (3) the utility of the programme improvement interventions, for example, mixed views and experiences of participating in the safety climate survey and meeting to reflect on the feedback report provided were apparent. Initial theories on the utilisation and potential impact of some interventions were refined based on evidence. Conclusions: The pilot was positively received with many practices reporting improvements in safety systems, team working and communications with colleagues and patients. Barriers and facilitators were identified related to how interventions were used as the programme evolved, while other challenges around spreading implementation beyond this pilot were highlighted.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Bowie, Dr Paul
Authors: Bowie, P., Halley, L., Blamey, A., Gillies, J., and Houston, N.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Health & Wellbeing > Public Health
Journal Name:BMJ Open
Publisher:BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:2044-6055
ISSN (Online):2044-6055
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2016 The Authors
First Published:First published in BMJ Open 6(1):e009526
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record