ArticleCJEM2022
Beliefs and perceptions of patient safety event reporting in a Canadian Emergency Department: a qualitative study.
Article in CJEM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop: Initial Testing and Refinement of a Novel Intervention to Enhance Hospital Incident Reporting and Patient Safety.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient safety incident reporting behavior and its associated factors among healthcare professionals in Hadiya zone, Ethiopia: A facility based cross-sectional study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPatient safety events (PSEs) are unwanted or unexpected events that occur during medical care. High cognitive loads and frequent interruptions make emergency departments (EDs) uniquely error prone environments. Yet, frontline clinicians rarely report PSEs using incident reporting systems. The incidence, severity, and preventability of PSEs thus remain poorly understood, and contributing factors are understudied. We sought to understand ED staff beliefs and perceptions about their PSE reporting system and what features they believe are important in such a system.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study among healthcare providers working in the ED and departmental leadership. We recruited participants via email and held a series of interviews, focus groups, and participatory workshops. We iteratively analyzed the data using the constant comparative method and used thematic analysis to establish themes.
results50 participants attended at least one focus group, interview, or workshop. Participants perceived that PSE reporting through formal channels in the ED was challenging. Clinicians had an inherent desire to report PSEs and do so through numerous informal channels, yet underreported in formal reporting systems. The current PSE reporting system did not meet frontline staff needs and was viewed as ineffective in improving care quality and safety. We identified three key features for an improved PSE reporting system: (1) clear definitions; (2) transparency; and (3) simplicity.
conclusionsIn this study, we have identified ideal features for PSE reporting processes to meet the needs of both frontline staff and departmental leadership based on perceptions of current PSE reporting practices. Improved PSE reporting processes have the potential to increase PSE reporting in the ED overall, increasing the availability of information about PSEs to support quality improvement and improve patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.