Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17545341›Full record

ArticleQuality & safety in health care2007

Evaluation of an intervention aimed at improving voluntary incident reporting in hospitals.

Sue M Evans, Brian J Smith, Adrian Esterman, William B Runciman, Guy Maddern, Karen Stead, Pam Selim, Jane O'Shaughnessy, Sandy Muecke, Sue Jones

Abstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions to increase clinical incident reporting in health care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The reporting of adverse events in Johannesburg Academic Emergency Departments.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sue M EvansDepartment of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. sue.evans@med.monash.edu.au
Brian J Smith
Adrian Esterman
William B Runciman
Guy Maddern
Karen Stead
Pam Selim
Jane O'Shaughnessy
Sandy Muecke
Sue Jones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of an intervention package comprising intense education, a range of reporting options, changes in report management and enhanced feedback, in order to improve incident-reporting rates and change the types of incidents reported. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsNon-equivalent group controlled clinical trial involving medical and nursing staff working in 10 intervention and 10 control units in four major cities and two regional hospitals in South Australia.

main outcome measuresComparison of reporting rates by type of unit, profession, location of hospital, type of incident reported and reporting mechanism between baseline and study periods in control and intervention units.

resultsThe intervention resulted in significant improvement in reporting in inpatient areas (additional 60.3 reports/10,000 occupied bed days (OBDs); 95% CI 23.8 to 96.8, p<0.001) and in emergency departments (EDs) (additional 39.5 reports/10,000 ED attendances; 95% CI 17.0 to 62.0, p<0.001). More reports were generated (a) by doctors in EDs (additional 9.5 reports/10,000 ED attendances; 95% CI 2.2 to 16.8, p = 0.001); (b) by nurses in inpatient areas (additional 59.0 reports/10,000 OBDs; 95% CI 23.9 to 94.1, p<0.001) and (c) anonymously (additional 20.2 reports/10,000 OBDs and ED attendances combined; 95% CI 12.6 to 27.8, p<0.001). Compared with control units, the study resulted in more documentation, clinical management and aggression-related incidents in intervention units. In intervention units, more reports were submitted on one-page forms than via the call centre (1005 vs 264 reports, respectively).

conclusionsA greater variety and number of incidents were reported by the intervention units during the study, with improved reporting by doctors from a low baseline. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between reporting rates in different types of units.

Indexed as

DisclosureAdultFeedbackFemaleHospital UnitsHumansIatrogenic DiseaseInservice TrainingMaleMedical ErrorsMedical Staff, HospitalMiddle AgedNursing Staff, HospitalProgram EvaluationRisk ManagementSouth Australia

Identifiers

PMID17545341
PMCPMC2465009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.