Andrew Carson-Stevens

Bio: Andrew Carson-Stevens is an academic researcher from Cardiff University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Patient safety & Incident report. The author has an hindex of 21, co-authored 111 publications receiving 1950 citations. Previous affiliations of Andrew Carson-Stevens include University of the West of Scotland & Cochrane Collaboration.

How safe is primary care? A systematic review

Abstract: Importance Improving patient safety is at the forefront of policy and practice. While considerable progress has been made in understanding the frequency, causes and consequences of error in hospitals, less is known about the safety of primary care. Objective We investigated how often patient safety incidents occur in primary care and how often these were associated with patient harm. Evidence review We searched 18 databases and contacted international experts to identify published and unpublished studies available between 1 January 1980 and 31 July 2014. Patient safety incidents of any type were eligible. Eligible studies were critically appraised using validated instruments and data were descriptively and narratively synthesised. Findings Nine systematic reviews and 100 primary studies were included. Studies reported between <1 and 24 patient safety incidents per 100 consultations. The median from population-based record review studies was 2–3 incidents for every 100 consultations/records reviewed. It was estimated that around 4% of these incidents may be associated with severe harm, defined as significantly impacting on a patient's well-being, including long-term physical or psychological issues or death (range <1% to 44% of incidents). Incidents relating to diagnosis and prescribing were most likely to result in severe harm. Conclusions and relevance Millions of people throughout the world use primary care services on any given day. This review suggests that safety incidents are relatively common, but most do not result in serious harm that reaches the patient. Diagnostic and prescribing incidents are the most likely to result in avoidable harm. Systematic review registration This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42012002304).

Psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer

Abstract: Background Psychological symptoms are associated with metastatic breast cancer. This is the basis for exploring the impact of psychological interventions on psychosocial and survival outcomes. One early study appeared to show significant survival and psychological benefits from psychological support while subsequent studies have revealed conflicting results. This review is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2007. Objectives To assess the effects of psychological interventions on psychosocial and survival outcomes for women with metastatic breast cancer. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), online trials and research registers in June/July 2011. Further potentially relevant studies were identified from handsearching references of previous trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of psychological interventions, which recruited women with metastatic breast cancer. Outcomes selected for analyses were overall survival, psychological outcomes, pain, quality of life, condition-specific outcome measures, relationship and social support measures, and sleep quality. Studies were excluded if no discrete data were available on women with metastatic breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Where possible, authors were contacted for missing information. Data on the nature and setting of the intervention, relevant outcome data, and items relating to methodological quality were extracted. Meta-analyses was performed using a random-effects or fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model, depending on expected levels of heterogeneity. Main results Ten RCTs with 1378 women were identified. Of the seven RCTs on group psychological interventions, three were on cognitive behavioural therapy and four were on supportive-expressive group therapy. The remaining three studies were individual based and the types of psychological interventions were not common to either cognitive behavioural or supportive-expressive therapy. A clear pattern of psychological outcomes could not be discerned as a wide variety of outcome measures and durations of follow-up were used in the included studies. The overall effect of the psychological interventions across six studies, on one-year survival, favoured the psychological intervention group with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.99). Pooled data from four studies did not show any survival benefit at five-years follow-up (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.52). There was evidence of a short-term benefit for some psychological outcomes and improvement in pain scores. Authors' conclusions Psychological interventions appear to be effective in improving survival at 12 months but not at longer-term follow-up, and they are effective in reducing psychological symptoms only in some of the outcomes assessed in women with metastatic breast cancer. However, findings of the review should be interpreted with caution as there is a relative lack of data in this field, and the included trials had reporting or methodological weaknesses and were heterogeneous in terms of interventions and outcome measures.

Global Research Priorities to Better Understand the Burden of Iatrogenic Harm in Primary Care: An International Delphi Exercise

Abstract: Using a modified Delphi exercise, Aziz Sheikh and colleagues identify research priorities for patient safety research in primary care contexts. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Out of the Crisis

Abstract: According to W. Edwards Deming, American companies require nothing less than a transformation of management style and of governmental relations with industry. In Out of the Crisis, originally published in 1982, Deming offers a theory of management based on his famous 14 Points for Management. Management's failure to plan for the future, he claims, brings about loss of market, which brings about loss of jobs. Management must be judged not only by the quarterly dividend, but by innovative plans to stay in business, protect investment, ensure future dividends, and provide more jobs through improved product and service. In simple, direct language, he explains the principles of management transformation and how to apply them.

About the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - NICE.

Abstract:

Why most published research findings are false

Abstract: There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.