Medical errors in primary care: results of an international study of family practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe errors Canadian family physicians found in their practices and reported to study investigators. To compare errors reported by Canadian family physicians with those reported by physicians in five other countries. DESIGN: Analytical study of reports of errors. The Linnaeus Collaboration was formed to study medical errors in primary care. General practitioners in six countries, including a new Canadian family practice research network (Nortren), anonymously reported errors in their practices between June and December 2001. An evolving taxonomy was used to describe the types of errors reported. SETTING: Practices in Canada, Australia, England, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians in the six countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Types of errors reported. Differences in errors reported in different countries. RESULTS: In Canada, 15 family doctors reported 95 errors. In the other five countries, 64 doctors reported 413 errors. Although the absence of a denominator made it impossible to calculate rates of errors, Canadian doctors and doctors from the other countries reported similar proportions of errors arising from health system dysfunction and gaps in knowledge or skills. All countries reported similar proportions of laboratory and prescribing errors. Canadian doctors reported harm to patients from 39.3% of errors; other countries reported harm from 29.3% of errors. Canadian physicians considered errors "very serious" in 5.8% of instances; other countries thought them very serious in 7.1% of instances. Hospital admissions and death were among the consequences of errors reported in other countries, but these consequences were not reported in Canada. CONCLUSION: Serious errors occur in family practice and affect patients in similar ways in Canada and other countries. Validated studies that analyze errors and record error rates are needed to better understand ways of improving patient safety in family practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".