Search results

The purpose of this paper is to determine the prevalence of feedback following adverse clinical incident reporting among trainee doctors in obstetrics and gynaecology within the Northwestern Deanery of England.

An anonymous questionnaire was circulated among the Specialist Registrar trainees within the specialty attending a regional teaching session. The questionnaire was analysed.

There were 50 responses, of those 45 (90 per cent) had been involved in an adverse clinical incident; 44 had submitted an incident form related to the incident. Three had submitted incident forms without being involved in an adverse incident. Most (80 per cent) had submitted an incident form as well as a related statement. Feedback was available to 23 (51 per cent) of those involved in adverse incidents. More of the senior trainees received feedback than the junior ones. A lecture on clinical incident reporting was available to only 35(70 per cent) of the respondents on the hospital induction day at their latest clinical placement.

This study is limited to adverse clinical incident reporting among the trainees in a single specialty within one deanery in UK; hence the small numbers.

This study demonstrates the presence of awareness regarding adverse incident reporting among the trainees in a high‐risk specialty. It also shows the suboptimal rate of feedback following adverse incident reporting, which does not encourage a learning environment. It is suggested that a lecture should be dedicated to incident reporting at the junior doctors' induction day programme in every hospital.

This paper highlights the lack of adequate feedback following adverse clinical incident reporting.

The main goal of the current research was to investigate whether and how leaders in health care organizations can stimulate incident reporting and error management by “walking the safety talk” (enacted priority of safety).

Open interviews (N=26) and a cross-sectional questionnaire (N=183) were conducted at the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) in The Netherlands.

As hypothesized, leaders’ enacted priority of safety was positively related to incident reporting and error management, and the relation between leaders’ enacted priority of safety and error management was mediated by incident reporting. The interviews yielded rich data on (near) incidents, the leaders’ role in (non)reporting, and error management, grounding quantitative findings in concrete case descriptions.

We support previous theorizing by providing empirical evidence showing that (1) enacted priority of safety has a stronger relationship with incident reporting than espoused priority of safety and (2) the previously implied positive link between incident reporting and error management indeed exists. Moreover, our findings extend our understanding of behavioral integrity for safety and the mechanisms through which it operates in medical settings.

Our findings indicate that for the promotion of incident reporting and error management, active reinforcement of priority of safety by leaders is crucial.

Social sciences researchers, health care researchers and health care practitioners can utilize the findings of the current paper in order to help leaders create health care systems characterized by higher incident reporting and more constructive error handling.

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of incident reporting within the Department of Gynaecology at Trafford General Hospital.

A list of all reported clinical incidents in relation to gynaecology at the Trafford General Hospital over a period of two years (January 2005 to December 2006) was obtained. The complaints and claims related to gynaecology were also obtained for the same time period. All complaints and claims were correlated with the reported adverse incidents.

Of the reported 111 adverse incidents, none resulted in either complaint or claim. None of the complaints resulted in claims but there was no corresponding incident reporting. All the claims were directly related to surgical procedures but no incident reporting was done either. The nursing staff filled in all the 111 adverse incident forms.

This study is only limited to adverse incidents in gynaecology over a short period of time (two years) at a District General Hospital.

This study demonstrates the need to stress the importance of incident reporting to the doctors. It is suggested that a session be dedicated to incident reporting as a part of in‐house training for medical staff of all grades.

This paper highlights the need to impress on the medical staff about the importance of adverse clinical incident reporting.

This research paper aims to examine how incident‐reporting systems function and particularly how the steady growth of high‐priority incidents and the semi‐exponential growth of low‐priority incidents affect reporting effectiveness. Social pressures that can affect low‐ and high‐priority incident‐reporting rates are also examined.

The authors reviewed the incident‐reporting system literature. As there are few studies of information security reporting systems, they also considered safety‐reporting systems. These have been in use for many years and much is known about them. Safety is used to “fill in the gaps”. The authors then constructed a system dynamics computer simulation model. The model is used to test how an incident‐reporting system reacts under different conditions.

Incident reporters face incentives and disincentives based on effects on through‐put but have limited knowledge of what is important to the organization's security. Even if a successful incident‐reporting policy is developed, the organization may become the victim of its own success, as a growing volume of reports put higher pressure on incident‐handling resources. Continuously hiring personnel is unsustainable. Continuously improving automated tools for incident response promises more leverage.

The challenges in safety may not be the same as those in information security. However, the model does provide a starting‐point for further enquiries into information security reporting systems.

An examination of basic factors that affect information security reporting systems is provided. Four different policies are presented and examined through simulation scenarios.

The purpose of this study is to assess attitudes toward and use of an electronic adverse incident reporting system in all four hospitals in one National Health Service Scotland Health Board area.

A questionnaire was used to assess medical consultants', managers', and nurses' attitudes and perceptions about electronic adverse incident reporting. Actual adverse incident reporting data were also analysed.

The main findings from this study are that consultants, managers, and nurses all had positive attitudes about responsibility for reporting adverse incidents. All respondents indicated that the design of and information collected by the electronic adverse incident reporting system (Datix) was adequate but consultants had more negative attitudes and perceptions than managers and nurses about Datix. All respondents expressed negative attitudes about the amount and type of feedback they receive from reporting, and consultants expressed more negative attitudes about how Datix is managed than managers and nurses. Analysis of adverse incident reporting data found that the proportion of consultants using Datix to report incidents was significantly lower than that of managers and nurses.

The findings suggest that there are no additional barriers to incident reporting associated with the use of a bespoke electronic adverse incident reporting system as compared to other types of systems. Although an electronic adverse incident reporting system may be able to increase incident reporting and facilitate organisational learning by making it easier to report incidents and analyse incident reporting data, strong leadership within hospitals/healthcare professions (or healthcare subcultures) is still required in order to promote and sustain incident reporting to improve patient safety.

This is the first study to investigate attitudes toward and reporting behaviour on a bespoke electronic adverse incident reporting system in hospitals.

Cyber security incidents pose a major threat to organisations. Reporting cyber security incidents and providing organisations with information about their true nature, type and volume, is crucial to inform risk-based decisions. Despite the importance of reporting cyber security incidents, little research has addressed employees’ motivations to do so. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that influence employees to report cyber security incidents using the theory of planned behaviour as a theoretical framework.

Survey data were collected from a sample of 549 working Australian adults. Demographics were gathered, in addition to data using the Cyber Security Incident Reporting Inventory (CSIRI; pronounced, “Siri”).

Attitude towards reporting, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control each significantly predicted intention-to-report cyber security incidents. Perceived behavioural control also significantly predicted actual reporting behaviour.

The results of this study validate the application of the theory of planned behaviour to the cyber security incident reporting context, also indicating that the relationship between intention to report a cyber security incident and actual reporting behaviour may be facilitated by perceived behavioural control.

These findings can be applied to inform the development of strategies that increase employees’ cyber security incident reporting behaviour.

This study outlines the development of a new tool to measure attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control in relation to the reporting of cyber security incidents. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to identify the relationship between these factors and intentions to report cyber security incidents.

The purpose of this paper is to present the ways in which underlying social and organisational factors and employment relations underpin the practice of incident reporting in the international shipping industry.

The paper uses a qualitative case study method involving field trips to two shipping organisations and sailing on research voyages on two ships of each of the organisations. It draws on empirical data using semi‐structured interviews, notes from fieldwork observations and documentary analysis of company policies, procedures and practices.

In the two companies studied there were significant gaps between the policy and practice of incident reporting, which were present primarily due to the employees' fear of losing jobs. It is shown that these findings were manifestations of deeper sociological issues and organisational weaknesses in the shipping industry. In particular ineffective regulatory infrastructure, weak employment practices, the absence of trade union support and lack of organisational trust were the key underlying concerns which made incident reporting notably ineffective in the shipping context.

While the weaknesses in the practice of incident reporting in the shipping industry were reported in the past, previous studies did not offer further explanations. This paper addresses the gap and provides another illustration of the need for looking into deeper sociological underpinnings for practices in the workplace. The author also hopes that the study will have a positive impact on policy makers in the shipping industry.

In the past, people were usually seen as the weakest link in the IT security chain. However, this view has changed in recent years and people are no longer seen only as a problem, but also as part of the solution. In research, this change is reflected in the fact that people are enabled to report security incidents that they have detected. During this reporting process, however, it is important to ensure that the reports are submitted with the highest possible data quality. This paper aims to provide a process-driven quality improvement approach for human-as-a-security-sensor information.

This work builds upon existing approaches for structured reporting of security incidents. In the first step, relevant data quality dimensions and influencing factors are defined. Based on this, an approach for quality improvement is proposed. To demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, it is prototypically implemented and evaluated using an exemplary use case.

In this paper, a process-driven approach is proposed, which allows improving the data quality by analyzing the similarity of incidents. It is shown that this approach is feasible and leads to better data quality with real-world data.

The originality of the approach lies in the fact that data quality is already improved during the reporting of an incident. In addition, approaches from other areas, such as recommender systems, are applied innovatively to the area of the human-as-a-security-sensor.

The reporting of incidents or “whistleblowing” occurs when a member of staff within an organisation discloses that an employee has acted in a way that is a cause for concern, and the person it is reported to has the ability to do something about it. Surveys in the UK and the USA have shown that errors in healthcare are unacceptably high. It is also known that under‐reporting of errors is the norm. There is a need to understand why people fail to report so that systems and more open cultures which support staff in reporting poor practice can be introduced. Research that captures the experiences of those who have observed poor care and what they experience if they report an incident is critical to developing such an understanding. This paper aims to address this issue.

An exploratory quantitative research design, based on a similar study in the NHS UK, was utilised to answer the research questions of this study. Data were collected in eight acute hospitals in the Health Services Executive (HSE) regions in Ireland. Two hospitals were selected from each of the four regions and nursing staff on three wards within each hospital provided the sample. A total of 575 anonymous questionnaires were sent to all grades of nurses working on these 24 wards.

A total of 152 responses were received, a response rate of 26 per cent. This study found that 88 per cent of respondents, i.e. nurses working in acute hospitals, have observed an incident of poor care in the past six months. The findings indicate that 70 per cent of those that observed an incident of poor care reported it. Nurse managers are more likely to report than staff nurses (reporting rates of 88 per cent and 65 per cent respectively). The study findings indicate that only one in four nurses who reported poor care were satisfied with the way the organisation handled their concerns.

Health professionals have a responsibility to maintain standards of care and this responsibility includes taking action to report poor care. The paper shows that reporting of poor care is hampered by a fear of retribution and lack of faith in the organisation's ability to take corrective action.

The first phase of this study developed a multi‐professionally agreed list of adverse events for clinical incident reporting in Trauma and Orthopaedics. This follow‐up study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the adverse event list.

Two follow‐up questionnaires were sent to healthcare professionals working in Trauma and Orthopaedics in two of the participating National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (n=247 for the first questionnaire and n=240 for the second questionnaire). Trends in routine incident reporting data were also monitored over a two‐year period to determine the impact of the adverse event list on levels of adverse event reporting.

The questionnaires indicated that awareness about the adverse event list was good and improved between questionnaires. However usage of the adverse event list appeared to be poor. Multiple regression analysis with the dependent variable count of orthopaedic incidents suggested that the adverse event list had little, if any impact on levels of reporting in Trauma and Orthopaedics.

The results of this study suggest that a practical tool, such as the adverse event list has little impact on incident reporting levels.