The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The identification and reduction of medical error has become a major priority for all health care providers, including primary care. Understanding the frequency and nature of medical error in primary care is a first step in developing a policy to reduce harm and improve patient safety. There has been scant research into this area. OBJECTIVES: This review had two objectives; first, to identify the frequency and nature of error in primary care, and, secondly, to consider the possible causes for the diversity in the stated rates and nature of error in primary care. METHODS: Literature searches of English language studies identified in the National Patient Safety Foundation bibliography database, in Medline and in Embase were carried out. Studies that were relevant to the purpose of the study were included. Additional information was obtained from a specialist medico-legal database. RESULTS: Studies identified that medical error occurs between five and 80 times per 100000 consultations, mainly related to the processes involved in diagnosis and treatment. Prescribing and prescription errors have been identified to occur in up to 11% of all prescriptions, mainly related to errors in dose. There are a wide variety of definitions and methods used to identify the frequency and nature of medical error. Incident reporting, systematic identification and medico-legal databases reveal differing aspects, and there are additional perspectives obtained from GPs, primary health care workers and patients. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the true frequency and nature of medical error is complicated by the different definitions and methods used in the studies. Further research is warranted to understand the complex nature and causes of such errors that occur in primary care so that appropriate policy decisions to improve patient safety can be made.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108
Cited by
Types and Origins of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Settings
Singh, H., Giardina, T. D., Meyer, A. N. D., Forjuoh, S. N., Reis, M. D., & Thomas, E. J. (2013) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777 · Cited by 559
Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories
Lippi, G., Blanckaert, N., Bonini, P., Green, S., Kitchen, S., Palicka, V., Vassault, A. J., & Plebani, M. (2008) · Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1515/cclm.2008.170 · Cited by 466
The Global Burden of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care
Singh, H., Schiff, G. D., Graber, M. L., Onakpoya, I., & Thompson, M. J. (2017) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005401 · Cited by 395
Vincent, C., & Amalberti, R. (2016) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25559-0 · Cited by 278
Errors in cancer diagnosis: current understanding and future directions
Singh, H., Sethi, S., Raber, M., & Petersen, L. A. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.13.2142 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Sandars, J., & Esmail, A.
- Venue
- Family Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 231-236
- ISSN
- 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2229
- OpenAlex
- W2144465075
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/fampra/cmg301
- The paper
- Sandars, J., & Esmail, A. (2003). The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies. Family Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmg301
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.