Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25875375›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2015

Factors that influence the recognition, reporting and resolution of incidents related to medical devices and other healthcare technologies: a systematic review.

Julie Polisena, Anna Gagliardi, David Urbach, Tammy Clifford, Michelle Fiander

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Quality analysis of manufacturer's incident reports regarding medical devices.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Julie PolisenaCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 600-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5S8, Canada. Juliep@cadth.ca.
Anna GagliardiToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. agagliar@uhnresearch.ca.
David UrbachToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. david.urbach@uhn.on.ca.
Tammy CliffordCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 600-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5S8, Canada. tammyc@cadth.ca.
Michelle FianderCochrane Effective Practise & Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 711, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8 L6, Canada. mfiander@ohri.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical devices have improved the treatment of many medical conditions. Despite their benefit, the use of devices can lead to unintended incidents, potentially resulting in unnecessary harm, injury or complications to the patient, a complaint, loss or damage. Devices are used in hospitals on a routine basis. Research to date, however, has been primarily limited to describing incidents rates, so the optimal design of a hospital-based surveillance system remains unclear. Our research objectives were twofold: i) to explore factors that influence device-related incident recognition, reporting and resolution and ii) to investigate interventions or strategies to improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device-related incidents.

methodsWe searched the bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO database. Grey literature (literature that is not commercially available) was searched for studies on factors that influence incident recognition, reporting and resolution published and interventions or strategies for their improvement from 2003 to 2014. Although we focused on medical devices, other health technologies were eligible for inclusion.

resultsThirty studies were included in our systematic review, but most studies were concentrated on other health technologies. The study findings indicate that fear of punishment, uncertainty of what should be reported and how incident reports will be used and time constraints to incident reporting are common barriers to incident recognition and reporting. Relevant studies on the resolution of medical errors were not found. Strategies to improve error reporting include the use of an electronic error reporting system, increased training and feedback to frontline clinicians about the reported error.

conclusionsThe available evidence on factors influencing medical device-related incident recognition, reporting and resolution by healthcare professionals can inform data collection and analysis in future studies. Since evidence gaps on medical device-related incidents exist, telephone interviews with frontline clinicians will be conducted to solicit information about their experiences with medical devices and suggested strategies for device surveillance improvement in a hospital context. Further research also should investigate the impact of human, system, organizational and education factors on the development and implementation of local medical device surveillance systems.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyMedical ErrorsEquipment and SuppliesHumansProduct Surveillance, Postmarketing

Identifiers

PMID25875375
PMCPMC4384231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.