The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident‐monitoring study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To collect data on incidents of potential or actual harm to general practice patients and to evaluate the possible causes of these incidents. DESIGN: An observational study of incidents of potential harm based on a modified critical incidents technique. A non-random sample of general practitioners (GPs) anonymously submitted incident reports contemporaneously. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Australian general practices between October 1993 and June 1995. During the study period, 324 GPs participated at some time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GP-reported free-text descriptions of incidents and structured responses for preventability, potential for harm, immediate consequences, predicted long-term outcomes, type of incident, contributing factors, mitigating factors, and additional resource use. RESULTS: 805 incidents were reported--76% were preventable; 27% had potential for severe harm. No long term harm was predicted for 66% of incidents. Incidents could relate to pharmacological management (51 per 100 incidents), nonpharmacological management (42 per 100 incidents), diagnosis (34 per 100 incidents) or equipment (5 per 100 incidents). The most common contributory factors were poor communication between patients and healthcare professionals and actions of others (23 per 100 incidents each) and errors in judgement (22 per 100 incidents). CONCLUSION: Human error and preventable system problems were identified. The incident monitoring technique provided useful data which could be applied to incident prevention strategies.
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
The critical incident technique.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0061470 · Cited by 8,191
Cited by
Overconfidence as a Cause of Diagnostic Error in Medicine
Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L. (2008) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001 · Cited by 1,034
(2003) · Health Information Management · doi:10.4324/9780203563298-15 · Cited by 608
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
IT support for healthcare processes – premises, challenges, perspectives
Lenz, R., & Reichert, M. (2007) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2006.04.007 · Cited by 521
When Conversation Is Better Than Computation
Coiera, E. (2000) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2000.0070277 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Bhasale, A. L., Miller, G. C., Reid, S. E., & Britt, H. C.
- Venue
- Medical Journal of Australia
- Publisher
- AMPCo
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 169
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 73-76
- ISSN
- 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
- 1326-5377
- OpenAlex
- W1574058724
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.92
- 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: Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident‐monitoring study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140186.x
- The paper
- Bhasale, A. L., Miller, G. C., Reid, S. E., & Britt, H. C. (1998). Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident‐monitoring study. Medical Journal of Australia. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb140186.x
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.