Table 7 A selection of comments and perceptions about the training intervention and the acceptability, feasibility and potential usefulness of the Trigger Review Method
The training intervention | |
• | ‘Positive experience’ |
• | ‘Not aware of [the trigger review method] previously’ |
• | ‘Case-based scenarios helped us to focus on what to look for, good idea to have a practice beforehand’ |
• | ‘Good that we did it individually but could then ask questions of each other in our small groups’ |
• | ‘Left confident that we could apply the process’ |
• | ‘Matching the case record example to EMIS/Vision would be a big help’ |
• | ‘Liked the handouts, good reference a few weeks later’ |
Acceptability | |
• | ‘Initially a bit annoying but good when you get into it’ |
• | ‘More interesting when audit is your own and relevant to you’ |
• | ‘Very good experience, sharing with colleagues and leading to further audit’ |
• | ‘Too reticent to discuss uncovered issues with colleagues for fear of offending or upsetting, particularly given junior position’ |
• | ‘[The TRM is a] good way of identifying important safety concerns’ |
Feasibility | |
• | ‘Focus needs to be on high risk groups’ |
• | ‘Very simple and quick to go through - triggers can be done in 2 minutes’ |
• | ‘Difficult for non-clinical staff, practice nurses might be even better, though might need GP guidance’ |
• | ‘Duration of time taken ok’ |
• | ‘Couldn't open electronic version’ |
• | ‘Increasing sample size not a real issue as it's quick and easy to find triggers and review records where nil of note found’ |
Potential usefulness | |
• | ‘Highlighted many interface issues [e.g. secondary care], not following-up [or] informing us to follow-up [patients]’ |
• | ‘Good to see all the potential, all the things we're doing to stop potential harm’ |
• | ‘Helped to change our [practice] protocol’ |
• | ‘Arguably more useful than audit, greater sense of ownership’ |