IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i9-10p1607-1613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Problems with incident reporting: Reports lead rarely to recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Mari Liukka
  • Markku Hupli
  • Hannele Turunen

Abstract

Aim and objective To analyse trends in incident reporting over the last 5 years and determine how many reports led to recommendations? Background Patient safety incident reporting systems have been used in health care for years. However, they have a significant weakness in that reports often do not lead to any visible action. Design The study is a retrospective register study. STROBE checklist was applied in the preparation of the paper. Methods Data were collected from a web‐based incident reporting database (HaiPro) for a social‐ and healthcare organisation in Finland, covering the period from 2011–2015. Results In total, 16,019 incident reports were analysed. In 2.7% (n = 426) of all reports, there was written recommendation to develop action that such incidents would not happen again. Those reports were classified into seven categories: education, introduction and information, introduction to work, patient care, guidelines, instruments and IT programmes, and the physical environment. Conclusions Managers get major amount incident reports. There should be (a) a definition what kind of events should be reported, (b) a definition for how serious events managers have to make a recommendation and (c) control that recommendations are implemented. Relevance to clinical practice There is a need for more action to promote patient safety based on incident reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Mari Liukka & Markku Hupli & Hannele Turunen, 2019. "Problems with incident reporting: Reports lead rarely to recommendations," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1607-1613, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:9-10:p:1607-1613
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14765
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14765?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raeda F AbuAlRub & Nemeh A Al‐Akour & Nour H Alatari, 2015. "Perceptions of reporting practices and barriers to reporting incidents among registered nurses and physicians in accredited and nonaccredited Jordanian hospitals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2973-2982, October.
    2. Chang‐Chiao Hung & Tsui‐Ping Chu & Bih‐O Lee & Chia‐Chi Hsiao, 2016. "Nurses’ attitude and intention of medication administration error reporting," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3-4), pages 445-453, February.
    3. Ann-Marie Howell & Elaine M Burns & George Bouras & Liam J Donaldson & Thanos Athanasiou & Ara Darzi, 2015. "Can Patient Safety Incident Reports Be Used to Compare Hospital Safety? Results from a Quantitative Analysis of the English National Reporting and Learning System Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reader, Tom W., 2022. "Stakeholder safety communication: patient and family reports on safety risks in hospitals," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114624, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Xiaoxiang Li & Shuhan Zhang & Rong Chen & Dongxiao Gu, 2021. "Hospital Climate and Peer Report Intention on Adverse Medical Events: Role of Attribution and Rewards," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Saman Attiq & Hassan Rasool & Shahid Iqbal, 2017. "The Impact of Supportive Work Environment, Trust, and Self-Efficacy on Organizational Learning and Its Effectiveness: A Stimulus-Organism Response Approach," Business & Economic Review, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan, vol. 9(2), pages 73-100, June.
    4. Maritta Välimäki & Yuen Ting Joyce Lam & Kirsi Hipp & Po Yee Ivy Cheng & Tony Ng & Glendy Ip & Paul Lee & Teris Cheung & Daniel Bressington & Tella Lantta, 2022. "Physical Restraint Events in Psychiatric Hospitals in Hong Kong: A Cohort Register Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Xi Yu & Ce Li & Xueqin Gao & Furong Liu & Ping Lin, 2018. "Influence of the medication environment on the unsafe medication behaviour of nurses: A path analysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(15-16), pages 2993-3000, August.
    6. Montserrat Gens-Barberà & Núria Hernández-Vidal & Elisa Vidal-Esteve & Yolanda Mengíbar-García & Immaculada Hospital-Guardiola & Eva M. Oya-Girona & Ferran Bejarano-Romero & Carles Castro-Muniain & Ev, 2021. "Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Li-Chin Chen & Li-Hsiang Wang & Bernice Redley & Ya-Hui Hsieh & Tsung-Lan Chu & Chin-Yen Han, 2018. "A Study on the Reporting Intention of Medical Incidents: A Nursing Perspective," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(5), pages 560-578, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:9-10:p:1607-1613. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.