The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How safe is primary care? A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Improving patient safety is at the forefront of policy and practice. While considerable progress has been made in understanding the frequency, causes and consequences of error in hospitals, less is known about the safety of primary care. Objective: We investigated how often patient safety incidents occur in primary care and how often these were associated with patient harm. Evidence review: We searched 18 databases and contacted international experts to identify published and unpublished studies available between 1 January 1980 and 31 July 2014. Patient safety incidents of any type were eligible. Eligible studies were critically appraised using validated instruments and data were descriptively and narratively synthesised. Findings: Nine systematic reviews and 100 primary studies were included. Studies reported between <1 and 24 patient safety incidents per 100 consultations. The median from population-based record review studies was 2–3 incidents for every 100 consultations/records reviewed. It was estimated that around 4% of these incidents may be associated with severe harm, defined as significantly impacting on a patient's well-being, including long-term physical or psychological issues or death (range <1% to 44% of incidents). Incidents relating to diagnosis and prescribing were most likely to result in severe harm. Conclusions and relevance: Millions of people throughout the world use primary care services on any given day. This review suggests that safety incidents are relatively common, but most do not result in serious harm that reaches the patient. Diagnostic and prescribing incidents are the most likely to result in avoidable harm. Systematic review registration: This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42012002304).
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System
(2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,044
A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population
Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A.-H. S., Dellinger, E. P., Herbosa, T., Joseph, S., Kibatala, P. L., Lapitan, M. C. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0810119 · Cited by 5,688
Leape, L. L., Brennan, T. A., Laird, N., Lawthers, A. G., Localio, A. R., Barnes, B. A., Hebert, L., Newhouse, J. P., Weiler, P. C., & Hiatt, H. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199102073240605 · Cited by 3,711
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
To Err Is Human : Building A Safer Health System
Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M., & Donaldson, M. S. (2000) · Cited by 2,830
The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada
Baker, G. R. (2004) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040498 · Cited by 2,352
Incidence of Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events: Implications for Prevention
Bates, D. W. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530010043033 · Cited by 2,127
Self-citation
Cited by
Panagioti, M., Khan, K., Keers, R. N., Abuzour, A., Phipps, D., Kontopantelis, E., Bower, P., Campbell, S., Haneef, R., Avery, A. J., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4185 · Cited by 874
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
Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making
Gopal, D. P., Chetty, U., O'Donnell, P., Gajria, C., & Blackadder-Weinstein, J. (2021) · Future Healthcare Journal · doi:10.7861/fhj.2020-0233 · Cited by 298
Assiri, G. A., Shebl, N. A., Mahmoud, M. A., Aloudah, N., Grant, E., Aljadhey, H., & Sheikh, A. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019101 · Cited by 284
Self-citationClinical Decision Support Systems for Diagnosis in Primary Care: A Scoping Review
Harada, T., Miyagami, T., Kunitomo, K., & Shimizu, T. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18168435 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Panesar, S. S., deSilva, D., Carson-Stevens, A., Cresswell, K. M., Salvilla, S. A., Slight, S. P., Javad, S., Netuveli, G., Larizgoitia, I., Donaldson, L. J., Bates, D. W., & Sheikh, A.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-12-29
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 544-553
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2209088894
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 85
- FWCI
- 5.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: How safe is primary care? A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004178
- The paper
- Panesar, S. S., deSilva, D., Carson-Stevens, A., Cresswell, K. M., Salvilla, S. A., Slight, S. P., Javad, S., Netuveli, G., Larizgoitia, I., Donaldson, L. J., Bates, D. W., & Sheikh, A. (2016). How safe is primary care? A systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004178
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.
