Patient Safety Reporting Systems a Literature Review of International Practice New Zealand
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec; 17(8): e1247–e1254.
An International Perspective on Definitions and Terminology Used to Describe Serious Reportable Patient Prophylactic Incidents: A Systematic Review
Josephine Hegarty
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Sarah Jane Flaherty
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Mohamad Thou. Saab
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
John Goodwin
From the ∗Catherine McAuley Schoolhouse of Nursing and Midwifery
Nuala Walshe
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Teresa Wills
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Vera J.C. McCarthy
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Siobhan Murphy
From the ∗Catherine McAuley Schoolhouse of Nursing and Midwifery
Alana Cutliffe
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Elaine Meehan
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Ciara Landers
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Elaine Lehane
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Aoife Lane
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Margaret Landers
From the ∗Catherine McAuley Schoolhouse of Nursing and Midwifery
Caroline Kilty
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
Deirdre Madden
†School of Law, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Mary Tumelty
†School of Law, University Higher Cork, Cork, Republic of ireland.
Corina Naughton
From the ∗Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery
- Supplementary Materials
-
SUPPLEMENTARY Material
GUID: 40499DF8-64F4-4F4E-A997-604CCD9F7482
GUID: 847A78E9-1F79-4E5E-A3F4-88D09FA9C87B
GUID: 16A3FC3E-9247-430A-AECC-91AE136619D5
GUID: 1F10A50C-95F5-4350-92DC-3EADB43E1CE7
Abstract
Objectives
Patients are unintentionally, yet oftentimes, harmed in situations that are deemed preventable. Incident reporting systems help prevent harm, yet in that location is considerable variability in how patient safety incidents are reported. This may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting and failures to identify serious patient safety incidents. This systematic review aims to describe international approaches in relation to defining serious reportable patient condom incidents.
Methods
Multiple electronic and grayness literature databases were searched for manufactures published between 2009 and 2019. Empirical studies, reviews, national reports, and policies were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted because of study heterogeneity.
Results
A total of 50 manufactures were included. In that location was broad variation in the terminology used to correspond serious reportable patient safety incidents. Several countries defined a specific subset of incidents, which are considered sufficiently serious, yet preventable if advisable safe measures are taken. Terms such as "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and study" were used. The following dimensions were identified to define a serious reportable patient condom incident: (one) incidents being largely preventable; (ii) having the potential for meaning learning; (3) causing serious harm or have the potential to cause serious damage; (4) existence identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting system; and (5) running the risk of recurrence.
Conclusions
Variations in terminology and reporting systems between countries might contribute to missed opportunities for learning. International standardized definitions and blame-free reporting systems would enable comparison and international learning to enhance patient safety.
Key Words: patient prophylactic, adverse issue, serious incident, reporting, systematic review
Patient damage is one of the major causes of global affliction brunt and represents the leading cause of injury and potentially avoidable harm in healthcare systems internationally.1 Patient safety is a global priority given the increasing evidence that patients are unintentionally, but frequently, harmed in situations often accounted to have been preventable.two,iii One of the fundamental means of preventing avoidable harm is by learning from failures of the healthcare system via incident reporting systems and implementing appropriate changes.4,v
At that place is, even so, variability in the approaches taken in relation to incident reporting. This may cause confusion equally to what is considered a reportable patient safety incident.six This lack of clarity may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting, which fails to allow identification of the most serious patient safe incidents to enable relevant learning and systems improvement.5 The Globe Wellness Organization (WHO) outlined a number of priority areas to improve patient rubber and support learning healthcare systems, and a shared understanding may exist critical to their accomplishment.1 Consequently, there is a need for standardized and consistent approaches to defining serious incidents and associated reporting protocols.
Although previous attempts at standardization have been made, there is a continual need to review and refine relevant terminology equally reporting approaches evolve to enable translation of learning across healthcare systems.6 Therefore, information technology is of import to understand the approaches that are used internationally to identify common elements, which may contribute to a more consistent means of incident reporting and a greater shared learning.3 The aim of this review is to depict international approaches in relation to the reporting of serious patient rubber incidents with a particular focus on exploring definitions and terminology used to represent serious patient safety incidents.
METHODS
This systematic review was guided by the principles of conducting systematic reviews,7 and the latest Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews,8 and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist.9
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility criteria were predetermined using the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Inquiry type) framework.10 The full inclusion and exclusion criteria and associated search terms are presented in Table 1. National reporting systems focusing on patients or any members of the public interacting with the healthcare system, regardless of speciality, were eligible for inclusion. Empirical studies, including systematic and discursive reviews, and national reports and policies were included. Editorials, theses, and conference abstracts were excluded.
Table i
Database Search Terms and Eligibility Criteria
| SPIDER Framework | General Term | Detailed Search Terms | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S ample | Patient/public | Patient OR customer OR user OR family unit OR public | Patients/members of the public interacting with the healthcare arrangement, regardless of speciality | Patients/members of the public outside of the healthcare organisation |
| P henomenon of I nterest | Serious safety incident reporting | Study OR national OR system OR database OR (mandatory adj2/N2/W2 disclosure) OR (open adj2/N2/W2 disclosure) OR "duty of candor" AND (critical OR watch OR serious) adj2/N2/W2 (incident OR event OR harm OR error) OR "medical error" OR "clinical error" OR "never event" OR "adverse consequence" OR "serious patient safe incident" OR "patient safety learning system" OR "critical incident reporting system" | 1. Takes a national or land or regional level approach two. Describes the processes underpinning the collection, collation and reporting of data pertaining to serious patient safety incidents i.eastward. safety incident learning system(s) or critical incident reporting organisation(due south) 3. Describes the collection, collation and reporting of incidents (medication fault, etc.) or reporting within i speciality or condition or error blazon, provided the reporting is at a national level | 1. Set in a context exterior of a national public healthcare system 2. Deals with "no harm" or "nearly miss" incident reporting 3. Identifies trends and patterns of serious incidents reported in a patient safety learning system 4. Low human development index countries |
| D esign | Not specified | Non specified | Details of a national guideline or national policy or national reporting systems | Reporting within a professional person group or discipline-specific focus |
| E valuation and R esearch blazon | Not specified | Not specified | one. Study of any design two. Systematic/discursive review 3. National report/policy | 1. Editorial 2. Thesis/dissertation 3. Conference abstruse |
Information Sources and Search
The following electronic databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, SocINDEX, UK/Ireland Reference Middle, ERIC, Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, OTseeker, PeDRO, Social Care Online, Philosophers alphabetize, Scopus, Global Ethics Observatory, Global Digital Library On Ideals, Sage, Hein Online, JSTOR, Lexis, Oxford Journals Online, Practical Law (Thomson Reuters), and Westlaw Ireland/Westlaw UK/Westlaw International. The search was limited to studies published between January 2009 and Jan 2019 in English. Search terms were predetermined based on the review eligibility criteria. These are detailed in Tabular array i.
A robust gray literature search was undertaken for gray literature databases, customized Google search engines, and targeted Spider web sites, with a focus on England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Republic of ireland, the netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, the United States (U.S.), Canada, Commonwealth of australia, and New Zealand. These countries were called every bit they have similar healthcare systems and related infrastructure and score loftier on the human being development index. The Spider web sites included in the grey literature search are outlined in online supplementary file 1 (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JPS/A304). A comprehensive search of each Web site was undertaken, and their potential functionality was leveraged to maximize retrieval. Where possible, results were organized based on relevance, and the offset 100 hits were reviewed for each search. Reference lists were screened to locate additional articles. The search for each state was conducted independently in pairs (J.Grand. and V.J.C.M.; J.H. and Due south.J.F.; G.M.S. and Due south.M.; N.W. and T.W.).
Report Selection
All potentially eligible articles were exported to a reference management software (Endnote X7, Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) where duplicates were removed. Articles were then transferred to an online software for screening and data extraction (Covidence, Veritas Health Innovation Ltd, Melbourne, Australia). Articles were initially screened on title and abstract independently in pairs to determine whether a full-text review was merited (A.C., Due east.G., J.H., Due south.J.F.). Total texts were so independently evaluated in pairs (A.C. and Southward.J.F.). Screening conflicts were resolved by consensus or by a tertiary reviewer (J.H.).
Data Extraction and Synthesis
Data extracted from empirical articles included: author(s), year, country, blueprint, aim, and findings. Information extraction was conducted by ane researcher (A.C.) and cross-checked by other researchers to ensure accurateness (J.G., One thousand.One thousand.Southward., N.W., S.K., T.W., V.J.C.M.). Information extracted from the grayness literature included the following: author(s), year, land, pattern, incident definitions, reportable incidents, and procedures for the collation and monitoring of these incidents. Data extraction from the grayness literature and subsequent cross-checking were undertaken in pairs (J.Thousand. and V.J.C.One thousand.; J.H. and S.J.F.; Yard.Thousand.South. and S.M.; N.W. and T.Due west.).
Given the heterogeneity of the included articles in terms of methodologies and geographical spread, a narrative data synthesis was conducted.
Level of Evidence
Studies were graded co-ordinate to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) level of evidence criteria.11 The SIGN tool assesses the potential adventure of bias associated with unlike study designs and assigns a numerical level of scientific evidence (ane++ to 4). High-quality meta-analyses or systematic reviews with very trivial run a risk of bias are assigned a value of 1++, whereas expert opinions are assigned a value of iv.
RESULTS
Study Selection
The written report option process is presented in Figure one. A full of 4458 records were identified through electronic database searching. After deletion of duplicates, 3661 records were screened on championship and abstract and 3596 irrelevant records were excluded. After reviewing the full text of eligible manufactures (northward = 65), including reference lists, 32 articles met the inclusion criteria. An additional 18 articles were identified in the gray literature search, yielding a total of 50 articles that were included in this review.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.
Study Characteristics
Nearly records related to European countries (due north = xxx), with the United Kingdom (Britain) being the main contributor (n = 16). The remaining records were from North America (due north = xiii), Australia (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 2), and Iran (north = one). Ii publications did not have a specific country focus. Nigh of the included records were international, European, and national guidance documents (n = 18), followed by narrative, scoping, and systematic reviews (n = thirteen). Study characteristics and findings from private studies are presented in online supplementary file 2 (Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/JPS/A305).
Level of Testify
The level of evidence was relatively depression across the reviewed articles. Of the manufactures sourced via electronic databases, two articles were categorized every bit 2++ (high-quality systematic reviews) and 7 were categorized as 2− (cohort, or similar, studies with high risk of bias). Near articles (n = 23) were categorized as level three or 4 (nonanalytical studies or expert opinion). Most records sourced from the grayness literature were regime documents outlining national policy and/or relevant legislation.
Reporting Serious Patient Safety Incidents
There was considerable variability between countries in the terminology used to represent and ascertain serious reportable patient rubber incidents. Table 2 presents the definitions used in relevant national documents. Farther complexity is introduced as different organizations within a country may utilise different terminology, or detail terms may exist used interchangeably, such as "never events," "picket events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and report." Such inconsistency has been acknowledged past the WHO.1
TABLE 2
International Definitions of Serious Patient Safety Incidents
| State | Definition |
|---|---|
| Australia | Sentinel Upshot: Serious incident that is wholly preventable and has caused serious harm to, or death of, a patient.12 |
| Canada | Patient Condom Incident: Event or circumstances which could have resulted or did result in unnecessary harm to a patient.xiii Never Events: Patient safety incidents that upshot in serious patient impairment or death, and that tin be prevented past using organizational checks and balances.14 |
| Denmark | Adverse Event: Event resulting from treatment by or stay in a hospital and not from the illness of the patient, if such event is at the same time either harmful or could accept been harmful had it non been avoided beforehand, or if the event did not occur for other reasons.15 |
| England and Wales | Serious Incident: Event in health care where the potential for learning is so keen, or the consequences to patients, families and carers, staff or organizations are so significant, that they warrant using boosted resources to mount a comprehensive response.16 Never Result: Serious incident that is wholly preventable because guidance or safety recommendations that provide strong systemic protective barriers are available at a national level and should have been implemented by all healthcare providers.17 |
| Netherlands | Sentinel Event: Unintended and unexpected upshot related to the quality of care and having acquired decease or serious harm to the patient.eighteen |
| New Zealand | Adverse Event: Event with negative or unfavorable reactions or results that are unintended, unexpected or unplanned.19 Always Study and Review Effect: Adverse event that can result in serious damage or death only are preventable with strong clinical and organizational systems.20 |
| Northern Ireland | Serious Adverse Incident: Any outcome or circumstances that led to damage, loss or damage to people, property, environs or reputation.21 Never Event: Serious incident that is wholly preventable considering guidance or condom recommendations that provide stiff systemic protective barriers are bachelor at a national level and should have been implemented by all healthcare providers.17 |
| Commonwealth of Ireland | Serious Reportable Event: Incidents which are either serious or that should not occur if the available preventative measures have been effectively implemented by healthcare providers.22 |
| Scotland | Adverse Outcome: Outcome that could have acquired (a almost miss), or did result in, harm to people or groups of people.23 |
| Sweden | Serious Adverse Event: Event where severe injury occurred, and care-related injury is permanent and has resulted in the patient having a significant increase in their need for care or their death.24 |
| U.Southward. | Serious Event: Event that can outcome in death, loss of a body part, disability, loss of actual part, or require major intervention for correction, e.g., college level of care, surgery.25 Serious Reportable Events: To qualify for the list of Serious Reportable Events in Healthcare, an event must exist unambiguous, largely, if not entirely, preventable, serious, and be whatsoever of the following: adverse; indicative of a trouble in a healthcare setting's safety systems; of import for public credibility or public accountability. In add-on, items included on the list are events that are: of concern to both the public and healthcare professionals and providers; clearly identifiable and measurable; and thus feasible to include in a reporting organization; and of a nature such that the take a chance of occurrence is significantly influenced by the policies and procedures of the healthcare facility.25 Sentinel Event: Patient prophylactic event (not primarily related to the natural form of the patient's illness or underlying condition) that reaches a patient and results in whatever of the post-obit: expiry, permanent harm, or severe temporary harm and intervention required to sustain life.26 |
An international expert console sought to provide clarity in this area and developed conceptual definitions relating to patient safety incidents and incident reporting.27 Serious (adverse) incidents or events were the terms primarily used, although sentinel event was also used, equally illustrated in definitions from Commonwealth of australia,12 and the netherlands.18
Several countries have defined a specific subset of incidents, which were considered sufficiently serious but viewed as wholly preventable if appropriate rubber measures are implemented. The terms "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and written report" were used in this context, with examples axiomatic in Canada,xiv England and Wales,17 and New Zealand.xx The reporting of serious incidents was mandated in legislation and/or national policy in several countries including the Republic of Ireland, the UK, Kingdom of denmark, the netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. When incorporated into legislation, it was typically the reporting procedure that was specified rather than an incident list. Associated incident lists were unremarkably published in a relevant policy, which was reviewed and revised regularly. A mixed-method case review institute that actual reporting remains suboptimal, fifty-fifty in the presence of such statutory obligations.28
The WHO's International Classification for Patient Safety was identified as a key reference certificate in relation to defining and coding of patient safety incidents, particularly in Europe.ane This classification was often amended to individual healthcare contexts.4,29,xxx In the U.S., at that place was greater emphasis on the definitions and coding formats adult past the Agency for Healthcare Enquiry and Quality (AHRQ)31 and the National Quality Forum (NQF).25,32,33 The AHRQ is developing and validating the Quality and Safety Review Organisation to collect comparable patient prophylactic data over time for acute care hospitals using standardized definitions and algorithms.31 More than than half of the U.South. states and the District of Columbia have enacted reporting systems using at least some portion of NQF'due south list to assist stakeholders identify and learn from serious reportable events.25 Tsang et al34 acknowledged the potential differences between these classification systems and related definitions and called for a greater test to permit translation across healthcare systems and support a greater consistency in the reporting of patient condom incidents.
Dimensions of Reportable Serious Patient Safety Incidents
In examining the definitions and systems used to study serious patient safe incidents, several dimensions were identified as key in defining a serious reportable patient safety incident. These dimensions are described in Tabular array iii and include: the post-obit: incidents existence largely preventable; having the potential for significant learning; having caused serious harm or the potential to crusade serious harm; beingness identifiable, measurable, and viable for inclusion in an incident reporting organization; and running the risk of recurrence. These dimensions marshal somewhat with the 5 dimensions of condom measurement and monitoring proposed by the Health Foundation Inspiring Movement,35 which are as follows: by harm, reliability, sensitivity to operations, apprehension and preparedness, and integration and learning.
TABLE 3
Dimensions of Incidents Termed equally Serious Reportable Events
| Dimension | Description |
|---|---|
| Preventable | Outcome is largely preventable because guidance or safety recommendations that provide protection are available nationally. |
| Potential for significant learning | Event where there is considerable potential for learning or consequences are sufficiently significant to warrant boosted resource to mountain a comprehensive response. Occurrence of event is indicative of a problem in a healthcare provider'due south safety organisation. |
| Cause unexpected or avoidable death or injury or potential to cause serious harm | Event caused unexpected or avoidable expiry, or injury resulting in serious harm or potential for serious harm to patients or whatever members of the public who are interacting with the healthcare system, regardless of speciality. |
| Identifiable and measurable | Consequence is conspicuously identifiable, measurable and feasible to include in a reporting system. Duplication in reporting elsewhere is avoided to minimize confusion in the system. |
| Run the gamble of reoccurrence | There is evidence that the effect has occurred in the past and that the risk of recurrence remains a concern for the organisation. |
Preventable
Incidents were viewed as "wholly preventable" or "preventable" when guidance or safety recommendations were available at a national level that offered strong systemic protective barriers. The implementation of such guidance or recommendations would preclude incident occurrence, whereas failure to do so is recognized as a serious flaw in a learning healthcare system. The U.S. serious reportable events list is a compilation of serious, largely preventable, and harmful clinical events, designed to aid in the cess, measurement, and reporting on the provision of safety intendance.25 It is considered important to split incidents that relate to patient safety from those relating to the quality of healthcare commitment.36 Although both are interdependent, the emphasis in prophylactic has to practise with preventing errors, learning from errors, and building a safety culture, whereas quality relates to the efficient, constructive, and purposeful care delivery, which increases the likelihood of predictable wellness outcomes and are consistent with current professional evidence-based practice.
Potential for Meaning Learning
Although variation is apparent, there seems to be a core emphasis on creating learning healthcare systems where learning is appropriately shared across and within organizations. This dimension relates to incidents where the potential for learning is so great or the consequences to patients, families and carers, staff, or system are so significant that they warrant additional resources to implement a comprehensive response.
One of the primal differences betwixt reporting systems seems to be the focus on learning from all events versus learning from all events but with a item focus on a specific list of serious reportable events.29 Although there is learning from all patient safety incidents, reporting systems need to prioritize very serious incidents that require a more than comprehensive investigation and critical system change.37 The mandatory reporting of specific incidents was viewed as beneficial in relation to identifying rare events, recognizing the safety needs of an organisation, and sharing appropriate condom solutions.38 These benefits were considered especially relevant for certain incidents, such equally medication errors, device failures, and hospital-acquired infections, where national solutions were considered necessary.38 Macrae5 argued that too much information is nerveless whereas little utilise is made of this information. He highlighted that a reporting system should allow identification and prioritization of those aspects of a healthcare system that crave additional examination and later on enable improvement and learning to accost such risks.5
Greater feedback on incident analysis straight to staff and service users was identified as a fundamental chemical element of a learning healthcare system.39–41 The separation of disciplinary activeness and legal repercussions was emphasized alongside confidentiality and anonymity for the individual reporting with a shift from a culture of arraign to one of learning and support.39,42 The sharing of learning from incident assay must move across internal organization dissemination and should contribute to learning beyond an entire healthcare organization.38 There is a further opportunity to develop transnational networks where learning can be shared between countries to inform policy development and improve patient prophylactic.4,29,43
Unexpected or Avoidable Expiry or Serious Injury
Unexpected or avoidable decease, or unexpected or avoidable injury resulting in serious harm to patients or any members of the public who are interacting with the healthcare organisation, are core components of all definitions of serious reportable incidents, regardless of speciality. The potential for an incident to outcome in patient death or serious damage is incorporated into the definitions of North America, Denmark, New Zealand, and the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. In England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, though "never events" accept the potential to crusade serious patient harm or death, this outcome is not required for the incident to be categorized every bit a "never event." This emphasis has been introduced to proactively place bug within the organization rather than react solely on the outcome of the incident.17
Identifiable, Measurable, and Feasible to Include in Reporting Organization
Another common component is that serious reportable incidents should be identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in a reporting organization. An incident must be clearly defined with clear discrimination between incidents in a reporting system, and its occurrence must be easily recognized in practice. Improved clarity in relation to the definition of a serious incident and how it differs from the patient'southward clinical condition or ongoing disease progression is required to foster an improved learning environment.42,44 International approaches to the reporting of serious patient rubber incidents varied in relation to the number and blazon of incidents that are considered reportable. Commonwealth of australia12 and New Zealandtwenty listed ten and vi incidents, respectively, that require reporting to the relevant national agency, whereas there were 34 reportable incidents listed for the Republic of Republic of ireland.22 In virtually countries, reportable incidents typically related to surgical or other health procedures (due east.g., wrong site surgery), patient protection (e.g., child discharged to wrong individual), and care direction (east.g., administration of incompatible blood products).
Run the Run a risk of Reoccurrence
The fifth and concluding dimension is that incidents should have occurred in the by, and the risk of recurrence should remain. In the broader field of hazard management, safety was primarily concerned with prevention of recurrence of specific incidents.45 For instance, in England, Northern Republic of ireland, and Wales, "never events" were identified through their previous occurrence and a continued risk of recurrence.17 In the Democracy of Ireland, the chief purpose of incident reporting systems "is to ensure that individual incidents are appropriately reviewed… and ensure that whatever underlying safety issues are addressed.46" This was identified equally central to preventing the recurrence of serious patient prophylactic incidents.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review illustrates that there continues to be variation internationally in relation to the reporting of serious patient condom incidents and what incidents are considered reportable within a healthcare system. Despite such variation, withal, commonalities were also apparent. In that location is a clear emphasis on creating a learning healthcare organisation, although how this is accomplished and the degree to which it is achieved within an organization differ. Certain dimensions of patient safety incidents were common across definitions and may constitute core components of a risk management arrangement. Drawing on these common dimensions, serious patient safety incidents may exist defined as those incidents which are (1) largely preventable; (2) have the potential for significant learning; (3) cause serious harm or have the potential to cause harm; (four) are identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting arrangement; and (5) run the risk of recurrence. This captures the key elements of what is considered a serious reportable incident and may provide a useful foundation of a shared definition to support improved consistency in both research and practice. Of note, the dimensions of incidents termed equally serious reportable events identified in the present review are comparable with the Wellness Foundation's five dimensions of safety monitoring and measurement,35 namely: (i) past harm, encompassing both psychological and physical measures; (ii) reliability, encompassing measures of behavior and systems; (3) sensitivity to operations, covering the information and chapters to monitor safety; (4) apprehension and preparedness, including the power to anticipate and prepare for problems; and (5) integration and learning, which is operationalized equally the ability to respond to and to improve rubber data.
The apparent inconsistency persists despite the attempts of the WHO to provide clarity to key concepts in patient safety reporting.6,27 This is recognized in particular areas, such as master intendance,47 and domicile intendance services,36 where ongoing work is focusing on creating greater consensus in the terminology used with the aim of supporting improved coherency in incident reporting. Notably, most published serious reportable events lists are hospital centric in their outlook, which is a business concern given that mechanisms are needed to closely track patient safety across health services from master, secondary, tertiary, to quaternary care. A greater uniformity may facilitate the translation of learning at an international level and across healthcare contexts and ultimately contribute to improvements in patient rubber.3,half-dozen,34 It is, however, of import to acknowledge the influence of the wellness intendance context in which reporting occurs. As highlighted by Yarmohammadian et al,39 the "social, political and cultural infrastructure impact the purpose of a reporting organization and the purpose itself determines type, confidentiality, reported events scope and contributory factors of a reporting system."(p143) This emphasizes the need for flexibility and pragmatism in relation to incident reporting and related definitions, which must be considered in different contexts.5 It is evident that a balance must exist accomplished betwixt the standardization of terminology and reporting protocols and their applied implementation in a healthcare arrangement. Enshrining serious reportable events lists in primary legislation has some benefits; all the same, such legislation tin be very restrictive and unwieldy to update and better; thus, it is preferable to have the broad reporting requirements and process in primary legislation with serious reportable events lists within secondary legislation or guidance or policy documents, thereby enabling regular update. Information technology is unclear how the lists of serious reportable events are derived internationally and how such lists are supported by show every bit definitions of serious harm vary beyond jurisdictions.
This review illustrates that there is connected inconsistency, in research and practice, in relation to the reporting of serious patient safety incidents, both in terms of the approach implemented and the terminology used. Although there is potential learning from all incidents, it is crucial that the most serious and preventable incidents are identified and addressed in a timely way. This necessitates a focus on a specific set of incidents of relevance to the detail healthcare context.
Identifying and addressing barriers to learning from incident reporting are vital to the reporting of serious patient safety incidents.48 Barriers identified in the international literature include the following: lack of training in the utilize of incident reporting systems, lack of user-friendliness of preexisting systems, uncertainties around reportable incidents, organizational culture of arraign, bureaucracy, fright of negative repercussions, lack of feedback, perceived lack of learning, and absenteeism of modify in practice as a result of incident reporting.49–51 These barriers can be addressed using diverse strategies. A worked example is a case-based threescore-minute discussion and analysis of patient condom incidents delivered to 1169 National Wellness Service stakeholders in the UK.52 This discussion led to significant improvements in noesis, skills, and behaviors relating to patient safety and resulted in 32 national quality improvement projects aimed at developing novel clinical protocols and implementing user-informed and user-friendly learning.52
By drawing on international evidence, this review has identified the core dimensions of what is considered to constitute a serious reportable incident. Given the agreed importance of translating serious incidents across healthcare systems into learning formats and sharing learning betwixt networks, developing an agreement of these core components is essential to let for the pragmatic implementation of effective reporting and learning systems. In that location is an absenteeism of discussion regarding the result of enforcement for nonreporting or failure to disclose serious reportable events, mayhap in recognition of the principal demand to create an open and but civilisation and the potential for such enforcement impacting negatively on this. Fifteen years afterward the Found of Medicine's study, To Err is Human, Mitchell et al53 interviewed 11 international patient safety experts nigh challenges that were not met by incident reporting since the release of the study. As a event, the following challenges were identified: (ane) inadequate report processing; (2) lack of adequate medical engagement; (3) bereft feedback loop to the reporter; (4) inadequate funding and institutional back up; and (5) failure to capture evolving wellness data technology. Similar challenges were iterated by Macraefive who argued that a solution to many of the patient safety incident reporting challenges is to perceive incidence reporting as an opportunity for learning, rather than as a mechanism to collect and clarify information. Similarly, this review highlighted the importance of fostering a blame-gratuitous reporting culture where the emphasis is placed on learning from incident occurrence rather than legal or disciplinary action. Therefore, legislation and related policies must be designed appropriately to back up such a cultural shift. Classen et al54 evaluated adverse effect incidences in 3 U.S. hospital using 3 methods (Institute for Healthcare Improvement's [IHI] Global Trigger Tool, AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators, and Hospital Voluntary Reporting System). It was found that the AHRQ indicators and Voluntary Reporting System missed 90% of adverse events, whereas he IHI Global Trigger Tool establish at least x times more serious adverse events than the other 2 methods.54 This tool depends on retrospective reviews of patient records to place adverse events.55 Therefore, the IHI'southward Global Trigger Tool relies heavily on the vigilance of those reporting adverse events,56 which further stresses the need to foster a blame-free reporting culture and putting policies in place in support of such a culture.
This systematic review was rigorously conducted and incorporated a comprehensive coverage of both peer-reviewed and gray literature. Information technology provides a clear outline of the core dimensions of serious reportable incidents, which can support future research and practice. There is, all the same, a lack of empirical evidence on the organizational or clinical impact of national reporting systems in relation to patient condom outcomes or cultural modify,57 highlighting an important gap in the testify base. Moreover, a clear limitation of this review is that the level of scientific testify is relatively depression, with nearly publications categorized as level 3 or 4, co-ordinate to the SIGN level of evidence criteria, reflecting a large proportion of nonanalytical studies and practiced opinions. Another limitation is the inclusion of studies published within the past x years. Although this helps identify the well-nigh recent evidence relating to the definitions used to describe serious reportable patient safety incidents, it may atomic number 82 to the omission of seminal articles and reports published in this expanse.
CONCLUSIONS
The reporting of serious patient rubber incidents is an evolving expanse, which highlights the continuous learning that exists in relation to patient safety. Despite efforts at an international level to bring uniformity to this area, disparity even so exists every bit to what constitutes a serious reportable incident and effective reporting system. This review reiterates the importance of focusing on creating a learning healthcare system to support patient safety. This can be achieved, for example, by ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of the individual reporting and establishing a blame-complimentary culture. This review as well emphasizes the value of focusing on a clearly defined set of serious and preventable incidents to extract appropriate learning that can be translated into systemwide improvements. A key recommendation from this review is to address the lack of relevant empirical research which limits the conclusions that may be drawn.58 There is a need to critically examine the impact of different reporting approaches on organizational civilisation and patient prophylactic outcomes to address this gap.
Supplementary Textile
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Susan Reilly, Jenny Hogan, Elizabeth Adams, David Keating, Sarah Condell, Marita Kinsella, and Dr Joan McCarthy for their back up with this work.
Footnotes
The authors disclose no conflict of interest.
This work was deputed and funded past the National Patient Safety Part, Department of Health, Democracy of Ireland.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (http://www.journalpatientsafety.com).
REFERENCES
3. Panesar SS deSilva D Carson-Stevens A, et al. . How safe is master intendance? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf . 2016;25:544–553. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. European Committee . Primal findings and recommendations on reporting and learning systems for patient rubber incidents beyond Europe. 2014. Bachelor at: http://buonepratiche.agenas.it/documents/More/eight.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2020.
5. Macrae C. The trouble with incident reporting. BMJ Qual Saf . 2016;25:71–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Runciman W Hibbert P Thomson R, et al. . Towards an international classification for patient condom: key concepts and terms. International J Qual Health Intendance . 2009;21:18–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Centre for Systematic Reviews and Dissemination . Systematic reviews. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. 2009. Available at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. Accessed January xv, 2020.
8. Higgins JPT Thomas J Chandler J, et al.. (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version vi.0. 2019. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed January xv, 2020.
9. Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J, et al. . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med . 2009;6:e1000097. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
x. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Across PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative bear witness synthesis. Qual Health Res . 2012;22:1435–1443. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network . SIGN 50: a guideline programmer's handbook. 2015. Available at: https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign50_2015.pdf. Accessed Jan xv, 2020.
18. Leistikow I Mulder S Vesseur J, et al. . Learning from incidents in healthcare: the journeying, not the arrival, matters. BMJ Qualit Saf . 2017;26:252–256. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Larizgoitia I, Bouesseau Yard-C, Kelley E. WHO efforts to promote reporting of adverse events and global learning. J Public Health Res . 2013;2:e29. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Wahid NNA, Moppett SH, Moppett IK. Quality of quality accounts: transparency of public reporting of never events in England. A semi-quantitative and qualitative review. J R Soc Med . 2016;109:190–199. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Carson-Stevens A Hibbert P Williams H, et al. . Characterising the nature of master care patient safety incident reports in the England and Wales national reporting and learning system: a mixed-methods agenda-setting study for full general practice. Health Serv Deliv Res . 2016;4. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385186/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK385186.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2020. [Google Scholar]
31. Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality . Common formats. 2016. Bachelor at: https://pso.ahrq.gov/common. Accessed Jan 15, 2020.
32. A national survey of medical error reporting laws. Yale J Health Policy Police Ideals . 2009. Winter;nine:201–286. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Elkin PL Johnson HC Callahan MR, et al. . Improving patient safety reporting with the common formats: common data representation for patient safety organizations. J Biomed Inform . 2016;64:116–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Tsang C Palmer W Bottle A, et al. . A review of patient rubber measures based on routinely collected hospital information. Am J Med Qual . 2012;27:154–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Doran DM Baker GR Szabo C, et al. . Identification of serious and reportable events in habitation care: a Delphi survey to develop consensus. International J Qual Health Care . 2014;26:136–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Cooper J Williams H Hibbert P, et al. . Nomenclature of patient-safety incidents in principal intendance. Bull World Wellness Organ . 2018;96:498–505. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Howell AM Burns EM Hull L, et al. . International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process. BMJ Qual Saf . 2017;26:150–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Yarmohammadian MH Rezaei F Ferdosi 1000, et al. . Healthcare incident reporting arrangement in several countries: concepts, infrastructure and features. Int J Health Syst Disaster Manag . 2013;1:143–149. [Google Scholar]
twoscore. Reed S Arnal D Frank O, et al. . National critical incident reporting systems relevant to anaesthesia: a European survey. Br J Anaesth . 2014;112:546–555. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Pettker CM. Systematic approaches to adverse events in obstetrics, part I: event identification and classification. Semin Perinatol . 2017;41:151–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Wellness Quality Ontario . Patient condom learning systems: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Ont Wellness Technol Appraise Ser . 2017;17:1–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Hohenstein C Hempel D Schultheis K, et al. . Critical incident reporting in emergency medicine: results of the prehospital reports. Emerg Med J . 2014;iii:415–418. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Donnelly P. Improving reporting of critical incidents through educational activity and involvement. BMJ Qual Improv Rep . 2015;4:u206996. w3776. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Zwart DLM, de Bont AA. Introducing incident reporting in primary intendance: a translation from condom science into medical practice. Health Risk Soc . 2013;xv:265–278. [Google Scholar]
47. de Wet C, O'Donnell C, Bowie P. Developing a preliminary 'never consequence' list for full general practice using consensus-building methods. Br J Gen Pract . 2014;64:e159–e167. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Sujan M. An organisation without a retentivity: a qualitative study of hospital staff perceptions on reporting and organisational learning for patient safety. Reliab Eng Syst Safe . 2015;144:45–52. [Google Scholar]
49. Braithwaite J Westbrook MT Travaglia JF, et al. . Cultural and associated enablers of, and barriers to, agin incident reporting. Qual Saf Health Care . 2010;19:229–233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fifty. Pasquini A Pozzi S Save L, et al. . Requisites for successful incident reporting in resilient organisations. In: Hollnagel Due east Paries J Wood DD, et al., eds. Resilience Applied science in Practice: A Guidebook . Farnham: Ashgate; 2011:237–254. [Google Scholar]
51. Sujan MA, Pozzi Southward, Valbonesi C. Reporting and learning: from boggling to ordinary. In: Braithwaite J, Wears R, Hollnagel E, eds. Resilient Health Care 3: Reconciling Work-as-Imagined With Work-equally-Done . Farnham: Ashgate; 2016:103–110. [Google Scholar]
52. Ahmed M Arora S Tiew S, et al. . Building a safer foundation: the lessons learnt patient rubber training programme. BMJ Qual Saf . 2014;23:78–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Mitchell I Schuster A Smith KM, et al. . Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative report of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years subsequently 'To Err is Homo'. BMJ Qual Saf . 2015;25:71–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Classen DC Resar R Griffin F, et al. . 'Global trigger tool' shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood) . 2011;xxx:581–589. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. James JT. A new, show-based approximate of patient harms associated with hospital intendance. Patient Saf . 2013;9:122–128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Stavropoulou C, Doherty C, Tosey P. How effective are incident-reporting systems for improving patient safety? A systematic literature review. Milbank Q . 2015;93:826–866. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Hegarty J Flaherty SJ Saab MM, et al. . The collection, collation and reporting of data pertaining to serious patient safety incidents: an international perspective. Unpublished Study for the Department of Health, Dublin, Republic of ireland; 2019. [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8612884/
Enregistrer un commentaire for "Patient Safety Reporting Systems a Literature Review of International Practice New Zealand"