BackgroundIn the UK, a process of revalidation is being introduced to allow doctors to demonstrate that they meet current professional standards, are up-to-date, and fit to practise. Given the serious risks to patients from hazardous use of medicines it will be appropriate, as part of the revalidation process, to assess the safety of prescribing by GPs. AimTo identify a set of potential prescribing-safety indicators for the purposes of revalidation of individual GPs in the UK. Design and settingThe RAND Appropriateness Method was used to identify, develop, and obtain agreement on the indicators in UK general practice. MethodTwelve GPs from across the UK with a wide variety of characteristics assessed indicators for appropriateness of use in revalidation. ResultsForty-seven safety indicators were considered appropriate for assessing the prescribing safety of individual GPs for the purposes of revalidation (appropriateness was defined as an overall panel median score of ≥7 (on a 1-9 scale), with no more than three panel members rating the indicator outside the 3-point distribution around the median]. After removing indicators that were variations on the same theme, a final set of 34 indicators was obtained; these cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic areas, hazardous drugdrug combinations, prescribing with a history of allergy, and inadequate laboratory-test monitoring. ConclusionThis study identified a set of 34 indicators that were considered, by a panel of 12 GPs, to be appropriate for use in assessing the safety of GP prescribing for the purposes of revalidation. Violation of any of the 34 indicators indicates a potential patient-safety problem.

BackgroundMedication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking.

BackgroundPatient safety in primary care is a developing field with an embryonic but evolving evidence base. This narrative review aims to identify tools that can be used by family practitioners as part of a patient safety toolkit to improve the safety of the care and services provided by their practices.MethodsSearches were performed in 6 healthcare databases in 2011 using 3 search stems; location (primary care), patient safety synonyms and outcome measure synonyms. Two reviewers analysed the results using a numerical and thematic analyses. Extensive grey literature exploration was also conducted.ResultsOverall, 114 Tools were identified with 26 accrued from grey literature. Most published literature originated from the USA (41%) and the UK (23%) within the last 10 years. Most of the literature addresses the themes of medication error (55%) followed by safety climate (8%) and adverse event reporting (8%). Minor themes included; informatics (4.5%) patient role (3%) and general measures to correct error (5%). The primary/secondary care interface is well described (5%) but few specific tools for primary care exist. Diagnostic error and results handling appear infrequently (<1% of total literature) despite their relative importance. The remainder of literature (11%) related to referrals, Out-Of-Hours (OOH) care, telephone care, organisational issues, mortality and clerical error.ConclusionsThis review identified tools and indicators that are available for use in family practice to measure patient safety, which is crucial to improve safety and design a patient safety toolkit. However, many of the tools have yet to be used in quality improvement strategies and cycles such as plan–do–study–act (PDSA) so there is a dearth of evidence of their utility in improving as opposed to measuring and highlighting safety issues. The lack of focus on diagnostics, systems safety and results handling provide direction and priorities for future research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2296-15-166) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.