Hermeneutics and Nature

This paper contributes to the on-going research into the ways in which the humanities transformed the natural sciences in the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries. By investigating the relationship between hermeneutics -- as developed by Herder -- and natural history, it shows how the methods used for the study of literary and artistic works played a crucial role in the emergence of key natural-scientific fields, including geography and ecology

Patient safety in primary care: a survey of general practitioners in the Netherlands

Contains fulltext : 89814.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Primary care encompasses many different clinical domains and patient groups, which means that patient safety in primary care may be equally broad. Previous research on safety in primary care has focused on medication safety and incident reporting. In this study, the views of general practitioners (GPs) on patient safety were examined. METHODS: A web-based survey of a sample of GPs was undertaken. The items were derived from aspects of patient safety issues identified in a prior interview study. The questionnaire used 10 clinical cases and 15 potential risk factors to explore GPs' views on patient safety. RESULTS: A total of 68 GPs responded (51.5% response rate). None of the clinical cases was uniformly judged as particularly safe or unsafe by the GPs. Cases judged to be unsafe by a majority of the GPs concerned either the maintenance of medical records or prescription and monitoring of medication. Cases which only a few GPs judged as unsafe concerned hygiene, the diagnostic process, prevention and communication. The risk factors most frequently judged to constitute a threat to patient safety were a poor doctor-patient relationship, insufficient continuing education on the part of the GP and a patient age over 75 years. Language barriers and polypharmacy also scored high. Deviation from evidence-based guidelines and patient privacy in the reception/waiting room were not perceived as risk factors by most of the GPs. CONCLUSION: The views of GPs on safety and risk in primary care did not completely match those presented in published papers and policy documents. The GPs in the present study judged a broader range of factors than in previously published research on patient safety in primary care, including a poor doctor-patient relationship, to pose a potential threat to patient safety. Other risk factors such as infection prevention, deviation from guidelines and incident reporting were judged to be less relevant than by policy makers

Mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice: A prospective observational study

Contains fulltext : 69425.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The validity and usefulness of incident reporting and other methods for identifying adverse events remains unclear. This study aimed to compare five methods in general practice. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, with five general practitioners, five methods were applied and compared. The five methods were physician reported adverse events, pharmacist reported adverse events, patients' experiences of adverse events, assessment of a random sample of medical records, and assessment of all deceased patients. RESULTS: A total of 68 events were identified using these methods. The patient survey accounted for the highest number of events and the pharmacist reports for the lowest number. No overlap between the methods was detected. The patient survey accounted for the highest number of events and the pharmacist reports for the lowest number. CONCLUSION: A mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice

Patient safety culture measurement in general practice. Clinimetric properties of 'SCOPE'

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A supportive patient safety culture is considered to be an essential condition for improving patient safety. Assessing the current safety culture in general practice may be a first step to target improvements. To that end, we studied internal consistency and construct validity of a safety culture questionnaire for general practice (SCOPE) which was derived from a comparable questionnaire for hospitals (Dutch-HSOPS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The survey was conducted among caregivers of Dutch general practice as part of an ongoing quality accreditation process using a 46 item questionnaire. We conducted factor analyses and studied validity by calculating correlations between the subscales and testing the hypothesis that respondents' <it>patient safety grade </it>of their practices correlated with their scores on the questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 72 practices 294 respondents completed the questionnaire. Eight factors were identified concerning <it>handover and teamwork, support and fellowship, communication openness, feedback and learning from error, intention to report events, adequate procedures and staffing, overall perceptions of patient safety </it>and <it>expectations and actions of managers</it>. Cronbach's alpha of the factors rated between 0.64 and 0.85. The subscales intercorrelated moderately, except for the factor about intention to report events. Respondents who graded patient safety highly scored significantly higher on the questionnaire than those who did not.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The SCOPE questionnaire seems an appropriate instrument to assess patient safety culture in general practice. The clinimetric properties of the SCOPE are promising, but future research should confirm the factor structure and construct of the SCOPE and delineate its responsiveness to changes in safety culture over time.</p

What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception

BACKGROUND: Physicians are being asked to report errors from primary care, but little is known about how they apply the term "error." This study qualitatively assesses the relationship between the variety of error definitions found in the medical literature and physicians' assessments of whether an error occurred in a series of clinical scenarios. METHODS: A systematic literature review and pilot survey results were analyzed qualitatively to search for insights into what may affect the use of the term error. The National Library of Medicine was systematically searched for medical error definitions. Survey participants were a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and a selected sample of family physician patient safety "experts." A survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios with problems (wrong test performed, abnormal result not followed-up, abnormal result overlooked, blood tube broken and missing scan results) was sent by mail to AAFP members and by e-mail to the experts. Physicians were asked to judge if an error occurred. A qualitative analysis was performed via "immersion and crystallization" of emergent insights from the collected data. RESULTS: While one definition, that originated by James Reason, predominated the literature search, we found 25 different definitions for error in the medical literature. Surveys were returned by 28.5% of 1000 AAFP members and 92% of 25 experts. Of the 5 scenarios, 100% felt overlooking an abnormal result was an error. For other scenarios there was less agreement (experts and AAFP members, respectively agreeing an error occurred): 100 and 87% when the wrong test was performed, 96 and 87% when an abnormal test was not followed up, 74 and 62% when scan results were not available during a patient visit, and 57 and 47% when a blood tube was broken. Through qualitative analysis, we found that three areas may affect how physicians make decisions about error: the process that occurred vs. the outcome that occurred, rare vs. common occurrences and system vs. individual responsibility CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an error both in the medical literature and in decision making by family physicians. These potential areas of confusion need further study

Adverse outcomes in maternity care for women with a low risk profile in The Netherlands: a case series analysis

Contains fulltext : 125208.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: This study aimed to perform a structural analysis of determinants of risk of critical incidents in care for women with a low risk profile at the start of pregnancy with a view on improving patient safety. METHODS: We included 71 critical incidents in primary midwifery care and subsequent hospital care in case of referral after 36 weeks of pregnancy that were related to substandard care and for that reason were reported to the Health Care Inspectorate in The Netherlands in 36 months (n = 357). We performed a case-by-case analysis, using a previously validated instrument which covered five broad domains: healthcare organization, communication between healthcare providers, patient risk factors, clinical management, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Determinants that were associated with risk concerned healthcare organization (n = 20 incidents), communication about treatment procedures (n = 39), referral processes (n = 19), risk assessment by telephone triage (n = 10), and clinical management in an out of hours setting (n = 19). The 71 critical incidents included three cases of maternal death, eight cases of severe maternal morbidity, 42 perinatal deaths and 12 critical incidents with severe morbidity for the child. Suboptimal prenatal risk assessment, a delay in availability of health care providers in urgent situations, miscommunication about treatment between care providers, and miscommunication with patients in situations with a language barrier were associated with safety risks. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic analysis of critical incidents improves insight in determinants of safety risk. The wide variety of determinants of risk of critical incidents implies that there is no single intervention to improve patient safety in the care for pregnant women with initially a low risk profile