Objective: To develop a preliminary taxonomy of primary care medical errors. Design: Qualitative analysis to identify categories of error reported during a randomized controlled trial of computer and paper reporting methods. Setting: The National Network for Family Practice and Primary Care Research. Participants: Family physicians. Main outcome measures: Medical error category, context, and consequence. Results: Forty two physicians made 344 reports: 284 (82.6%) arose from healthcare systems dysfunction; 46 (13.4%) were errors due to gaps in knowledge or skills; and 14 (4.1%) were reports of adverse events, not errors. The main subcategories were: administrative failures (102; 30.9% of errors), investigation failures (82; 24.8%), treatment delivery lapses (76; 23.0%), miscommunication (19; 5.8%), payment systems problems (4; 1.2%), error in the execution of a clinical task (19; 5.8%), wrong treatment decision (14; 4.2%), and wrong diagnosis (13; 3.9%). Most reports were of errors that were recognized and occurred in reporters' practices. Affected patients ranged in age from 8 months to 100 years, were of both sexes, and represented all major US ethnic groups. Almost half the reports were of events which had adverse consequences. Ten errors resulted in patients being admitted to hospital and one patient died. Conclusions: This medical error taxonomy, developed from self-reports of errors observed by family physicians during their routine clinical practice, emphasizes problems in healthcare processes and acknowledges medical errors arising from shortfalls in clinical knowledge and skills. Patient safety strategies with most effect in primary care settings need to be broader than the current focus on medication errors. P rimary care is characterized by customized care that responds to individual patients' needs, values, and preferences across a broad spectrum of health care.

Adult and adolescent survivors of childhood cancer who receive their follow-up care from a family physician must be empowered to choose a physician who is comfortable with caring for survivors. Further, the survivor must ensure that their physician has access to a treatment summary as well as to patient-specific recommendations for surveillance for late effects of cancer therapy.

PURPOSE We wanted to describe how primary care clinicians care for patients with type 2 diabetes.METHODS We undertook a cross-sectional study of 95 primary care clinicians and 822 of their established patients with type 2 diabetes from 4 practice-based, primary care research networks in the United States. Clinicians were surveyed about their training and practice. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire about their care, and medical records were reviewed for complications, treatment, and diabetes-control indicators. RESULTSParticipating clinicians (average age, 45.7 years) saw an average of 32.6 adult patients with diabetes per month. Patients (average age, 59.7 years) reported a mean duration of diabetes of 9.1 years, with 34.3% having had the disease more than 10 years. Nearly one half (47.5%) of the patients had at least 1 diabetes-related complication, and 60.8% reported a body mass index greater than 30. Mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) level was 7.6% (SD 1.73), and 40.5% of patients had values <7%. Only 35.3% of patients had adequate blood pressure control (<130/85 mm Hg), and only 43.7% had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels <100 mg/dL. Only 7.0% of patients met all 3 control targets. Multilevel models showed that patient ethnicity, practice type, involvement of midlevel clinicians, and treatment were associated with HbA 1c level; patient age, education level, and practice type were associated with blood pressure control; and patient ethnicity was associated with LDL-C control.CONCLUSIONS Only modest numbers of patients achieve established targets of diabetes control. Reengineering primary care practice may be necessary to substantially improve care.

No abstract

PURPOSEWe compared the completeness of data collection using paper forms and using electronic forms loaded on handheld computers in an offi ce-based patient interview survey conducted within the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. METHODSWe asked 19 medical assistants and nurses in family practices to administer a survey about pneumococcal immunizations to 60 older adults each, 30 using paper forms and 30 using electronic forms on handheld computers. By random assignment, the interviewers used either the paper or electronic form fi rst. Using multilevel analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and clustering of forms by practice, we analyzed the completeness of the data.RESULTS A total of 1,003 of the expected 1,140 forms were returned to the data center. The overall return rate was better for paper forms (537 of 570, 94%) than for electronic forms (466 of 570, 82%) because of technical diffi culties experienced with electronic data collection and stolen or lost handheld computers. Errors of omission on the returned forms, however, were more common using paper forms. Of the returned forms, only 3% of those gathered electronically had errors of omission, compared with 35% of those gathered on paper. Similarly, only 0.04% of total survey items were missing on the electronic forms, compared with 3.5% of the survey items using paper forms.CONCLUSIONS Although handheld computers produced more complete data than the paper method for the returned forms, they were not superior because of the large amount of missing data due to technical diffi culties with the handheld computers or loss or theft. Other hardware solutions, such as tablet computers or cell phones linked via a wireless network directly to a Web site, may be better electronic solutions for the future.