Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Review

Unsafety

Trisha Greenhalgh
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (607): 95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X663154
Trisha Greenhalgh
Professor of Primary Health Care at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London
Roles: GP in North London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Embedded Image

It's time we introduced a new word into our vocabulary: unsafety. Patient safety is, rightly, a top concern of clinicians and managers. The landmark report To Err is Human, for example, was subtitled Building a Safer Health System — as if generic measures to reduce human error will be followed, as night follows day, by improved patient safety.1 This is surely a no-brainer.

Not so, says a recent paper2 by a Dutch social scientist who conducted ethnographic observation in general practice, focusing mainly on the relatively high-risk setting of out-of-hours care. On the basis of many hours of observation, systematically analysed, she concluded that ‘the assumption that clinical work can be made safe by reducing errors not only is problematic, it also creates new forms of “unsafety”.’

Error is usually defined in terms such as ‘the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim’ (page 21).3 The assumption here is that clinical behaviour is the construction, followed by the execution, of a ‘plan’, and that error consists of the under-performance or misperformance of the plan.

But guess what? The empirical data from Jerak-Zuiderent's study show that in reality, general practice (and quite possibly, much of the rest of medicine too) is considerably messier than that. Uncertainty is high, hence the ‘confidence intervals’ around our predictions are necessarily wide. Often, the only way to determine what will happen next is to sit back and observe. So the judicious clinician takes it steady, reflects on emerging data, and encourages patients to do the same. How often do we record on the patient's record ‘advised return if no better in 24 hours’?

Because of this inherent and irreducible uncertainty, even when expertly trained and highly experienced (indeed, especially in these circumstances), we clinicians rarely make well-defined plans in advance. Rather, we operate in what Jerak-Zuiderent calls ‘a continuous stream of knowing and acting’, adapting the micro-detail of our behaviour on a day-by-day and even moment-by-moment basis so as to avoid the contradictions between uncertainty and safety. Safety cannot (or at least, cannot entirely) be built into a technology or a protocol on the basis of general and abstract knowledge about ‘error situations in general’. Rather, safety is an active and ongoing accomplishment, achieved on the basis of specific and emerging knowledge about ‘this situation in particular’.

Sceptical? Get hold of the paper and read the examples of ‘evidence-based safety protocols’ designed to reduce error. These protocols seem splendid in the abstract but when applied to real, concrete situations, they actually reduced the safety of real patients in unique situations — especially when implemented uncritically by staff who chose to suspend their situational judgement in favour of the rule. This is what Jerak-Ziderent calls ‘unsafety’.

So come on, funders: who will give us a research call on UNsafety?

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine
    (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Jerak-Zuiderent S
    (2012) Certain uncertainties: modes of patient safety in healthcare. Soc Stud Sci 42(5):732–752.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America
    (1999) To err is human: building a safer health system (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) http://wps.pearsoneducation.nl/wps/media/objects/13902/14236351/H%2007_To%20Err%20Is%20Human.pdf (accessed 11 Jan 2013).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (607)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 607
February 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Unsafety
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Unsafety
Trisha Greenhalgh
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (607): 95. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X663154

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Unsafety
Trisha Greenhalgh
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (607): 95. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X663154
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

The Review

  • Tick. Tick. Tick ....
  • Made to measure?
  • Assumptions kill
Show more The Review

Outside the Box

  • The compassionate organisation
  • Five biases of new technologies
  • All change on the life support course
Show more Outside the Box

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242