Perceptions of Canadian labour and delivery nurses about incident reporting: A qualitative descriptive focus group study

Health professionals' perceptions of the development needs of incident reporting software: A qualitative systematic review

AIM

To systemically identify and synthesize information on health professionals' and students' perceptions regarding the development needs of incident reporting software.

DESIGN

A systematic review of qualitative studies.

DATA SOURCES

A database search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Medic without time or language limits in February 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

A total of 4359 studies were identified. Qualitative studies concerning the perceptions of health professionals and students regarding the development needs of incident reporting software were included, based on screening and critical appraisal by two independent reviewers. A thematic synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

From 10 included studies, five analytical themes were analysed. Health professionals and students desired the following improvements or changes to incident reporting software: (1) the design of reporting software, (2) the anonymity of reporting, (3) the accessibility of reporting software, (4) the classification of fields and answer options and (5) feedback and tracking of reports. Wanted features included suitable reporting forms for various specialized fields that could be integrated into existing hospital information systems. Rapid, user-friendly reporting software using multiple reporting platforms and with flexible fields and predefined answer options was preferred. While anonymous reporting was favoured, the idea of reporting serious incidents with both patient and reporter names was also suggested.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals and students provided concrete insights into the development needs for reporting software. Considering the underreporting of healthcare cases, the perspectives of healthcare professionals must be considered while developing user-friendly reporting tools. Reporting software that facilitates the reporting process could reduce underreporting.

REPORTING METHOD

The ENTREQ reporting guideline was used to support the reporting of this systematic review.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

There was no patient or public contribution.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with register number CRD42023393804.

Patient safety incident reporting software: A cross-sectional survey of nurses and other users' perspectives

AIM

To investigate nurses' and other users' perceptions and knowledge regarding patient safety incident reporting software and incident reporting.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional online survey.

METHODS

The survey, 'The Users' Perceptions of Patient Safety Incident Reporting Software', was developed and used for data collection January-February 2024. We aimed to invite all potential users of reporting software in two wellbeing service counties in Finland to participate in the survey. Potential users (reporters/handlers/others) were nurses, other health professionals and employees. Satisfaction was classified as dissatisfied, neutral, or satisfied. The association between overall satisfaction and demographics was tested using cross-tabulation and a Chi-square test.

RESULTS

The completion rate was 54% (n = 755). Some respondents (n = 25) had never used reporting software, most often due to no perceived need to report, although their average work experience was 15 years. Of other respondents (n = 730), mostly nurses (n = 432), under half agreed that the software was quick to use and easy to navigate. The biggest dissatisfaction was with the report processing features. Over a fifth did not trust that reporting was anonymous. Training and frequency of using the software were associated with overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Reporting software has not reached its full potential and needs development. Report handling is essential for shared learning; however, the processing features require the most improvements. Users' perceptions must be considered when developing reporting software and processes.

IMPACT

Incident reporting software usability is central to reporting, but nurses' and other users' perceptions of software are poorly understood. This survey shows weaknesses in reporting software and emphasizes the importance of training. The survey can contribute to paying more attention to organizing training, getting users to participate in software development, and deepening knowledge of issues in reporting software. Making the needed improvements could improve patient safety.

REPORTING METHOD

The STROBE Checklist (Supplement-S1).

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

"We can't just have a casual conversation": An institutional ethnography-informed study of work in labour and birth

Labour and delivery units often become contested workplaces with tensions between obstetrics, nursing, and midwifery practices. These tensions can impede communication and raise concerns about provider wellness and patient safety. Remedying such tensions requires inquiry into the drivers of recurrent problems in interprofessional practice. We engaged in change-oriented inquiry informed by institutional ethnography (IE) within an academic hospital in Toronto, Canada (2017-2019). Clinicians identified critical incident analysis reports used to document recurrent issues for transfers of care (TOC) and consultations between professionals. We then mapped the everyday/everynight work of midwives, nurses, and obstetricians by observing (75 h) and interviewing them (n = 15). We also traced work processes to local (forms and hospital policies) and external (national policies and evidence-based guidelines) texts. Our IE-informed analysis made visible the otherwise hidden links between the everyday work of practitioners and its social organization. Three intrapartum work processes involving midwives consulting with obstetricians were identified: induction of labour with TOC back to midwife once labour was "active", consultation without TOC, and TOC for various indications. Three points of disjuncture complicated these processes: (i) a local "3 consult rule", linked to medico-legal governance and remuneration structures; (ii) subjective interpretations of the "4-cm dilation rule", a policy meant to standardize practice; and (iii) regulations delaying the timing of consultations. The Electronic Fetal Monitoring system served as a powerful text, materializing issues of professional scope and autonomy for midwives, and medicolegal accountability for obstetricians. Our study extends extant evidence that medicine-driven governance of midwifery practices can perpetuate interprofessional challenges. While practitioners spoke of the three disjunctures as 'laws', most also viewed them as ostensibly modifiable. Interprofessional tensions may be addressed by considering how social organization, materialized in texts detailing medico-legal liability and remuneration, can constrain possible practices through regulatory protocols, local ruling policies, and cultural expectations (e.g., documentation practices).

Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings: A qualitative study

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The barriers and facilitators to incident reporting are becoming well known in general healthcare settings due to a large body of research in this area. At present, it is unknown if these factors also affect incident reporting in mental healthcare settings as the same amount of research has not been conducted in these settings. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: Some of the barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings are the same as general healthcare settings (i.e., learning and improvement, time and fear). Other factors appear to be specific to mental healthcare settings (i.e., the role of patient diagnosis and how incidents involving assault are dealt with). WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Interventions to improve incident reporting in mental healthcare settings may be adapted from general healthcare settings in some cases. Bespoke interventions for mental healthcare settings that focus specifically on violence and aggression should be co-designed with patients and staff. Thresholds for incident reporting (i.e., what types of incidents will not be tolerated) need to be set, communicated and adopted Trust wide to ensure parity across staff groups and services. ABSTRACT: Introduction Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting have been widely researched in general health care. However, it is unclear if the findings are applicable to mental health care where care is increasingly complex. Aim To investigate if barriers and facilitators affecting incident reporting in mental health care are consistent with factors identified in other healthcare settings. Method Data were collected from focus groups (n = 8) with 52 members of staff from across West London NHS Trust and analysed with thematic analysis. Results Five themes were identified during the analysis. Three themes (a) learning and improvement, (b) time and (c) fear were consistent with the existing wider literature on barriers and facilitators to incident reporting. Two further themes (d) interaction between patient diagnosis and incidents and (e) aftermath of an incident-prosecution specifically linked to the provision of mental health care. Conclusions Whilst some barriers and facilitators to incident reporting identified in other settings are also prevalent in the mental healthcare setting, the increased incidence of violent and aggressive behaviour within mental health care presents a unique challenge for incident reporting. Clinical implications Although interventions to improve incident reporting may be adapted/adopted from other settings, there is a need to develop specific interventions to improve reporting of violent and aggressive incidents.

Outcomes of Effective Integration of Clinical Risk Management Into Health Care From Nurses' Viewpoints: A Qualitative Study

The aim of this study was to explore nurses' experiences and viewpoints about the outcomes of effective integration of clinical risk management (CRM) into health care. This qualitative study was conducted using purposive sampling and semistructured interviews with 19 nurses from three hospitals affiliated with a large medical university. Data were analyzed by the conventional qualitative content analysis method proposed by Lundman and Graneheim. Data analysis reflected the following concepts: improving the quality of services and promoting health, preserving and protecting patient safety, increasing satisfaction, improving staff morale, and improving organizational awareness and vigilance. According to the results, CRM with its positive outcomes can help the development of a patient-oriented culture. The results can be a starting point for further quantitative and qualitative research to explore other strategies, potentials, and capacities of quality improvement activities such as CRM in other contexts and cultures.

The attitudes of nursing students and clinical instructors towards reporting irregular incidents in the medical clinic

Despite efforts to increase patient safety, medical incidents and near misses occur daily. Much is still unknown about this phenomenon, especially due to underreporting. This study examined why nursing students and clinical instructors underreport medical events, and whether they believe that changes within their institutions could increase reporting. 103 third- and fourth-year nursing students and 55 clinical instructors completed a validated questionnaire. The results showed that about one-third of the instructors and one-half of the nursing students believed that circumstances and lack of awareness, and fear of consequences, lead to underreporting. Both nursing students and clinical instructors ranked "fear of consequences" as the main reason for not reporting, yet students ranked this higher than their instructors. Moreover, both groups believed that incident reporting could be increased following changes in the clinical field, mainly by increasing awareness and knowledge. A large percentage of participants also wrote that they do not report errors that are the result of circumstances and lack of awareness, mainly fear of consequences. Therefore, hospitals and academic institutions may need to create a more accepting organizational climate. Moreover, institutions that allow incident reports to be submitted anonymously and that take educational (not disciplinary) action, may increase incident reporting.

Experiences from ten years of incident reporting in health care: a qualitative study among department managers and coordinators

Background

Incident reporting (IR) in health care has been advocated as a means to improve patient safety. The purpose of IR is to identify safety hazards and develop interventions to mitigate these hazards in order to reduce harm in health care. Using qualitative methods is a way to reveal how IR is used and perceived in health care practice. The aim of the present study was to explore the experiences of IR from two different perspectives, including heads of departments and IR coordinators, to better understand how they value the practice and their thoughts regarding future application.

Methods

Data collection was performed in Östergötland County, Sweden, where an electronic IR system was implemented in 2004, and the authorities explicitly have advocated IR from that date. A purposive sample of nine heads of departments from three hospitals were interviewed, and two focus group discussions with IR coordinators took place. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Two main themes emerged from the data: “Incident reporting has come to stay” building on the categories entitled perceived advantages, observed changes and value of the IR system, and “Remaining challenges in incident reporting” including the categories entitled need for action, encouraged learning, continuous culture improvement, IR system development and proper use of IR.

Conclusions

After 10 years, the practice of IR is widely accepted in the selected setting. IR has helped to put patient safety on the agenda, and a cultural change towards no blame has been observed. The informants suggest an increased focus on action, and further development of the tools for reporting and handling incidents.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2876-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development of a theoretical framework of factors affecting patient safety incident reporting: a theoretical review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

The development and implementation of incident reporting systems within healthcare continues to be a fundamental strategy to reduce preventable patient harm and improve the quality and safety of healthcare. We sought to identify factors contributing to patient safety incident reporting.

DESIGN

To facilitate improvements in incident reporting, a theoretical framework, encompassing factors that act as barriers and enablers ofreporting, was developed. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and PsycINFO were searched to identify relevant articles published between January 1980 and May 2014. A comprehensive search strategy including MeSH terms and keywords was developed to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted by three independent researchers; to ensure the accuracy of data extraction, all studies eligible for inclusion were rescreened by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 3049 potentially eligible articles; of these, 110 articles, including >29 726 participants, met the inclusion criteria. In total, 748 barriers were identified (frequency count) across the 110 articles. In comparison, 372 facilitators to incident reporting and 118 negative cases were identified. The top two barriers cited were fear of adverse consequences (161, representing 21.52% of barriers) and process and systems of reporting (110, representing 14.71% of barriers). In comparison, the top two facilitators were organisational (97, representing 26.08% of facilitators) and process and systems of reporting (75, representing 20.16% of facilitators).

CONCLUSION

A wide range of factors contributing to engagement in incident reporting exist. Efforts that address the current tendency to under-report must consider the full range of factors in order to develop interventions as well as a strategic policy approach for improvement.

Evaluating the Effective Factors for Reporting Medical Errors among Midwives Working at Teaching Hospitals Affiliated to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Background:

Recently, evaluation and accreditation system of hospitals has had a special emphasis on reporting malpractices and sharing errors or lessons learnt from errors, but still due to lack of promotion of systematic approach for solving problems from the same system, this issue has remained unattended. This study was conducted to determine the effective factors for reporting medical errors among midwives.

Materials and Methods:

This project was a descriptive cross-sectional observational study. Data gathering tools were a standard checklist and two researcher-made questionnaires. Sampling for this study was conducted from all the midwives who worked at teaching hospitals affiliated to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences through census method (convenient) and lasted for 3 months. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics through SPSS 16.

Results:

Results showed that 79.1% of the staff reported errors and the highest rate of errors was in the process of patients’ tests. In this study, the mean score of midwives’ knowledge about the errors was 79.1 and the mean score of their attitude toward reporting errors was 70.4. There was a direct relation between the score of errors’ knowledge and attitude in the midwifery staff and reporting errors.

Conclusions:

Based on the results of this study about the appropriate knowledge and attitude of midwifery staff regarding errors and action toward reporting them, it is recommended to strengthen the system when it comes to errors and hospitals risks.

Incident reporting systems: a comparative study of two hospital divisions

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of incident reporting in health care organizations have largely focused on single cases, and have usually attended to earlier stages of reporting. This is a comparative case study of two hospital divisions' use of an incident reporting system, and considers the different stages in the process and the factors that help shape the process.

METHOD

The data was comprised of 85 semi-structured interviews of health care practitioners in general internal medicine, obstetrics and neonatology; thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was undertaken. Inductive and deductive themes are reported. This work is part of a larger qualitative study found elsewhere in the literature.

RESULTS

The findings showed that there were major differences between the two divisions in terms of: a) what comprised a typical report (outcome based vs communication and near-miss based); b) how the reports were investigated (individual manager vs interdisciplinary team); c) learning from reporting (interventions having ambiguous linkages to the reporting system vs interventions having clear linkages to reported incidents); and d) feedback (limited feedback vs multiple feedback).

CONCLUSIONS

The differences between the two divisions can be explained in terms of: a) the influence of litigation on practice, b) the availability or lack of interprofessional training, and c) the introduction of the reporting system (top-down vs bottom-up approach). A model based on the findings portraying the influences on incident reporting and learning is provided. Implications for practice are addressed.

Facilitators and barriers influencing patient safety in Swedish hospitals: a qualitative study of nurses' perceptions

Background

Sweden has undertaken many national, regional, and local initiatives to improve patient safety since the mid-2000s, but solid evidence of effectiveness for many solutions is often lacking. Nurses play a vital role in patient safety, constituting 71% of the workforce in Swedish health care. This interview study aimed to explore perceived facilitators and barriers influencing patient safety among nurses involved in the direct provision of care. Considering the importance of nurses with regard to patient safety, this knowledge could facilitate the development and implementation of better solutions.

Methods

A qualitative study with semi-structured individual interviews was carried out. The study population consisted of 12 registered nurses at general hospitals in Sweden. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The nurses identified 22 factors that influenced patient safety within seven categories: ‘patient factors’, ‘individual staff factors’, ‘team factors’, ‘task and technology factors’, ‘work environment factors’, ‘organizational and management factors’, and ‘institutional context factors’. Twelve of the 22 factors functioned as both facilitators and barriers, six factors were perceived only as barriers, and four only as facilitators. There were no specific patterns showing that barriers or facilitators were more common in any category.

Conclusion

A broad range of factors are important for patient safety according to registered nurses working in general hospitals in Sweden. The nurses identified facilitators and barriers to improved patient safety at multiple system levels, indicating that complex multifaceted initiatives are required to address patient safety issues. This study encourages further research to achieve a more explicit understanding of the problems and solutions to patient safety.

Organizational safety culture and medical error reporting by Israeli nurses

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between patient safety culture (PSC) and the incidence and reporting rate of medical errors by Israeli nurses.

DESIGN

Self-administered structured questionnaires were distributed to a convenience sample of 247 registered nurses enrolled in training programs at Tel Aviv University (response rate = 91%).

METHODS

The questionnaire's three sections examined the incidence of medication mistakes in clinical practice, the reporting rate for these errors, and the participants' views and perceptions of the safety culture in their workplace at three levels (organizational, departmental, and individual performance). Pearson correlation coefficients, t tests, and multiple regression analysis were used to analyze the data.

FINDINGS

Most nurses encountered medical errors from a daily to a weekly basis. Six percent of the sample never reported their own errors, while half reported their own errors "rarely or sometimes." The level of PSC was positively and significantly correlated with the error reporting rate. PSC, place of birth, error incidence, and not having an academic nursing degree were significant predictors of error reporting, together explaining 28% of variance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the influence of an organizational safety climate on readiness to report errors. Senior healthcare executives and managers can make a major impact on safety culture development by creating and promoting a vision and strategy for quality and safety and fostering their employees' motivation to implement improvement programs at the departmental and individual level.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A positive, carefully designed organizational safety culture can encourage error reporting by staff and so improve patient safety.