12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years after 'To Err is Human'.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          One of the key recommendations of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) report, To Err is Human, 15 years ago was for greater attention to incident reporting in healthcare, analogous to the role it has played in aviation and other high-risk industries. With the passage of time and maturation of the patient safety field, we conducted semistructured interviews with 11 international patient safety experts with knowledge of the US healthcare and meeting at least one of the following criteria: (1) involved in the development of the IOM's recommendations, (2) responsible for the design and/or implementation of national or regional incident reporting systems, (3) conducted research on patient safety/incident reporting at a national level. Five key challenges emerged to explain why incident reporting has not reached its potential: poor processing of incident reports (triaging, analysis, recommendations), inadequate engagement of doctors, insufficient subsequent visible action, inadequate funding and institutional support of incident reporting systems and inadequate usage of evolving health information technology. Leading patient safety experts acknowledge the current challenges of incident reports. The future of incident reporting lies in targeted incident reporting, effective triaging and robust analysis of the incident reports and meaningful engagement of doctors. Incident reporting must be coupled with visible, sustainable action and linkage of incident reports to the electronic health record. If the healthcare industry wants to learn from its mistakes, miss or near miss events, it will need to take incident reporting as seriously as the health budget.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Towards an International Classification for Patient Safety: key concepts and terms

          Background Understanding the patient safety literature has been compromised by the inconsistent use of language. Objectives To identify key concepts of relevance to the International Patient Safety Classification (ICPS) proposed by the World Alliance For Patient Safety of the World Health Organization (WHO), and agree on definitions and preferred terms. Methods Six principles were agreed upon—that the concepts and terms should: be applicable across the full spectrum of healthcare; be consistent with concepts from other WHO Classifications; have meanings as close as possible to those in colloquial use; convey the appropriate meanings with respect to patient safety; be brief and clear, without unnecessary or redundant qualifiers; be fit-for-purpose for the ICPS. Results Definitions and preferred terms were agreed for 48 concepts of relevance to the ICPS; these were described and the relationships between them and the ICPS were outlined. Conclusions The consistent use of key concepts, definitions and preferred terms should pave the way for better understanding, for comparisons between facilities and jurisdictions, and for trends to be tracked over time. Changes and improvements, translation into other languages and alignment with other sets of patient safety definitions will be necessary. This work represents the start of an ongoing process of progressively improving a common international understanding of terms and concepts relevant to patient safety.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study.

            To assess awareness and use of the current incident reporting system and to identify factors inhibiting reporting of incidents in hospitals. Anonymous survey of 186 doctors and 587 nurses from diverse clinical settings in six South Australian hospitals (response rate = 70.7% and 73.6%, respectively). Knowledge and use of the current reporting system; barriers to incident reporting. Most doctors and nurses (98.3%) were aware that their hospital had an incident reporting system. Nurses were more likely than doctors to know how to access a report (88.3% v 43.0%; relative risk (RR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.63), to have ever completed a report (89.2% v 64.4%; RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61), and to know what to do with the completed report (81.9% v 49.7%; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13). Staff were more likely to report incidents which are habitually reported, often witnessed, and usually associated with immediate outcomes such as patient falls and medication errors requiring corrective treatment. Near misses and incidents which occur over time such as pressure ulcers and DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis were least likely to be reported. The most frequently stated barrier to reporting for doctors and nurses was lack of feedback (57.7% and 61.8% agreeing, respectively). Both doctors and nurses believe they should report most incidents, but nurses do so more frequently than doctors. To improve incident reporting, especially among doctors, clarification is needed of which incidents should be reported, the process needs to be simplified, and feedback given to reporters.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Reporting of adverse events.

              L Leape (2002)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Qual Saf
                BMJ quality & safety
                BMJ
                2044-5423
                2044-5415
                Feb 2016
                : 25
                : 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Harkness Fellow, Commonwealth Fund, Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
                [2 ] Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
                [3 ] Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
                [4 ] Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
                Article
                bmjqs-2015-004405
                10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004405
                26217037
                231a1cd2-7fc3-45dd-8682-18ff8993e66c
                History

                Adverse events, epidemiology and detection,Patient safety,Qualitative research,Significant event analysis, critical incident review

                Comments

                Comment on this article