Responses

Download PDFPDF

The preliminary development and testing of a global trigger tool to detect error and patient harm in primary-care records
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    More Errors

    Reply to Reply In reply to De Wets and Bowie's reply to my criticism:

    De Wet and Bowie state 1. Our paper makes it very clear that this is a study of primary care records and not of consultations, GPs or of primary care per se.

    Reply Although this is true, nowhere does the paper explicitly explain that is looking in primary records for errors across the totality of healthcare. This is not mentioned un...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Feedback

    Dear Editor

    Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Dr Chris Johnstone's comments on our 2009 publication.(1)

    1. Our paper makes it very clear that this is a study of primary care records and not of consultations, GPs or of primary care per se.

    2. There is no "common method of measuring rates of harm" in primary care (2) as Johnstone states. We refer to research on medical error and t...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Are there errors in error papers?

    The Editor
    Postgraduate Medical Journal, BMA House, Tavistock House, London WC1H 9JR
    30 June 2011

    Dear Editor,
    A 2009 paper by de Wet and Bowie in the Postgraduate Medical Journal(1) has recently been used by its authors' employer to suggest that, "A recent pilot study reviewing a random selection of primary care electronic medical records found a harm rate of 9.5%".(2) Not only is this interpretation of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.