Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37188073›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Assessing the healthcare quality issues for digital incident reporting in Sweden: Incident reports analysis.

Md Shafiqur Rahman Jabin, Mary Steen, Dianne Wepa, Patrick Bergman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Md Shafiqur Rahman JabinDepartment of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0197-8716
Mary SteenDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Dianne WepaFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Patrick BergmanDepartment of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4934-8684

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study explored healthcare quality issues affecting the reporting and investigation levels of digital incident reporting systems. Methods: A total of 38 health information technology-related incident reports (free-text narratives) were collected from one of Sweden's national incident reporting repositories. The incidents were analysed using an existing framework, i.e., the Health Information Technology Classification System, to identify the types of issues and consequences. The framework was applied in two fields, 'event description' by the reporters and 'manufacturer's measures', to assess the quality of reporting incidents by the reporters. Additionally, the contributing factors, i.e., either human or technical factors for both fields, were identified to evaluate the quality of the reported incidents. Results: Five types of issues were identified and changes made between before-and-after investigations: Machine to software-related issues ( Conclusion: This study shed some light on the issues of incident reporting and the gap between the reporting and investigation levels. Facilitating sufficient staff training sessions, agreeing on common terms for health information technology systems, refining the existing classifications systems, enforcing mini-root cause analysis, and ensuring unit-based local reporting and standard national reporting may help bridge the gap between reporting and investigation levels in digital incident reporting.

Indexed as

classification systemhardware issueshealth information technologyhuman factorsPatient safetyquality improvementsoftware issuestechnical factorstraining and education

Identifiers

PMID37188073
PMCPMC10176549

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.