Incident reporting systems: a comparative study of two hospital divisions. Issue 1 (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hewitt, Tanya; Chreim, Samia; Forster, Alan
• Is Part Of: Archives of public health. Volume 74:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 19
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Patient safety -- Medical errors -- Qualitative research -- Internal medicine -- Obstetrics -- Neonatology; Public health -- Periodicals; Public health -- Belgium -- Periodicals; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1186/s13690-016-0146-8
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2049-3258

Abstract

Abstract 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.