Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Type: Journal article
Title: Mapping the limits of safety reporting systems in health care - what lessons can we actually learn?
Author: Thomas, M.
Schultz, T.
Hannaford, N.
Runciman, W.
Citation: Medical Journal of Australia, 2011; 194(12):635-639
Publisher: Australasian Med Publ Co Ltd
Issue Date: 2011
ISSN: 0025-729X
Statement of
Matthew J.W. Thomas, Timothy J. Schultz, Natalie Hannaford and William B. Runciman
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the utility of Australian health care incident reporting systems anddetermine the depth of information available within a typical system. DESIGN AND SETTING: Incidents relating to patient misidentification occurring between 2004 and 2008 were selected from a sample extracted from a number of Australian health services’ incident reporting systems using a manual search function. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident type, aetiology (error type) and recovery (errordetection mechanism). Analyses were performed to determine category saturation. RESULTS: All 487 selected incidents could be classified according to incident type. The most prevalent incident type was medication being administered to the wrong patient (25.7%, 125), followed by incidents where a procedure was performed on the wrong patient (15.2%, 74) and incidents where an order for pathology or medical imaging was mislabelled (7.0%, 34). Category saturation was achieved quickly, with about half the total number of incident types identified in the first 13.5% of the incidents. All 43 incident types were classified within 76.2% of the dataset. Fifty-two incident reports (10.7%) included sufficient information to classify specific incident aetiology, and 288 reports (59.1%) had sufficient detailed information to classify a specific incident recovery mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: Incident reporting systems enable the classification of the surface features of an incident and identify common incident types. However, current systems provide little useful information on the underlying aetiology or incident recovery functions. Our study highlights several limitations of incident reporting systems, and provides guidance for improving the use of such systems in quality and safety improvement.
Keywords: Humans; Safety Management; Inpatients; Medical Errors; Risk Management; Patient Identification Systems; Quality of Health Care; Australia
Rights: Copyright status unknown
RMID: 0020118245
Description (link):
Appears in Collections:Nursing publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.