Background Physicians who perform unsafe practices and harm patients may be disciplined. In Norway, there are five types of disciplinary action, ranging from a warning for the least serious examples of malpractice to loss of licence for the most serious ones. Disciplinary actions always involve medical malpractice. The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency and distribution of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision for doctors in Norway and to uncover nation-wide patient safety issues. Methods We retrospectively investigated all 953 disciplinary actions for doctors given by the Board between 2011 and 2018. We categorized these according to type of action, recipient’s profession, organizational factors and geographical location of the recipient. Frequencies, cross tables, rates and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. Results Rural general practitioners received the most disciplinary actions of all doctors and had their licence revoked or restricted 2.1 times more frequently than urban general practitioners. General practitioners and private specialists received respectively 98.7 and 91.0 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Senior consultants and junior doctors working in hospitals received respectively 17.0 and 6.4 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Eight times more actions were received by primary care doctors than secondary care doctors. Doctors working in primary care were given a warning 10.6 times more often and had their licence revoked or restricted 4.6 times more often than those in secondary care. Conclusion The distribution and frequency of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision clearly varied according to type of health care facility. Private specialists and general practitioners, especially those working in rural clinics, received the most disciplinary actions. These results deserve attention from health policy-makers and warrant further studies to determine the factors that influence medical malpractice. Moreover, the supervisory authorities should assess whether their procedures for reacting to malpractice are efficient and adequate for all types of physicians working in Norway.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to identify and analyse rural general practice patients’ experiences of hazards and harm that comprise adverse events, and their strategies for coping with them.DesignInterview study using systematic text condensation and coping strategy theory in an abductive analysis process.SettingNine rural general practice clinics in Norway.ParticipantsTwenty participants, aged 21–79 years, all presenting with recent onset of somatic and/or psychiatric complaints.ResultsParticipating rural general practice patients described their experiences of a variety of hazards and harms. Their three most discussed cognitive and behavioural coping strategies were: (1) to accept the events; (2) to confront them and (3) to engage in planful problem-solving. While the participants demonstrated a tendency toward accepting hazards and harm that their regular general practitioner created, they were often willing to confront those that locum (ie, substitute) general practitioners created. Participants used planful problem-solving in situations they deemed hazardous, such as breaches of confidentiality or not being taken seriously, as well as during potential/actual emergencies.ConclusionsPatients at rural general practice clinics actively identify and respond to hazards and harm, applying three coping strategies. Thus, patients themselves may serve as an important safety barrier against hazards and harm; their potential contributions to improving patient safety must be appreciated accordingly and reflected in future research as well as in everyday clinical practice.

Background and objectives General practitioners (GPs), nurses and medical secretaries (practice staff) are responsible for the continuous provision of safe care in rural general practice. Little is known about their role in situations where patients were or could have been harmed in a rural setting. Therefore, we sought to investigate rural general practice staff experiences of patient safety incidents and low quality of care. Methods Descriptive qualitative interviews using the critical incident technique. Systematic text condensation analysis involving GPs and practice staff in eight rural municipalities in Norway. Results Sixteen participants (eight GPs, one nurse and seven medical secretaries) with mean work experience of 11.8 years were interviewed for a total of 11.5 hours. We identified three main factors that make rural GP clinics vulnerable to patient safety incidents and low quality of care: use of locums, work overload and rough weather and distance to hospital. There was a wide range of patient safety incidents. The healthcare personnel explained how they used local knowledge about people and context and greater awareness of risk of error in order to prevent these incidents from happening. Conclusion Rural GP clinics that suffer from frequent use of GP locums and work overload are vulnerable to patient safety incidents. Practice staff use various forms of continuity of care to prevent safety incidents from happening; this highlights the strengths but also some major safety concerns in these GP clinics. Staff at these clinics proved to be a resource for patient safety research. Podcast An accompanying podcast on patient safety is available as Supplementary Data , in which Martin Bruusgaardf Harbitz and Per Stensland provide insights into the context of this study.