ArticleJournal of nursing management2025
Handling Features of Patient Safety Incident Reporting Software and Shortcomings in Report Processing From Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives: A Cross-Sectional Study With a Qualitative Design.
Article in Journal of nursing management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurse and Other Healthcare Managers' Experiences and Recommendations for Patient Incident Reporting Processes and Real-Time Software Development: A Qualitative Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Patient safety culture in Chinese nursing homes: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient safety incidents are underreported, and report handlers, usually unit managers, are dissatisfied with the incident reporting software's handling features. Aim: To (1) identify the handling features of patient safety incident reporting software that support and challenge report processing; (2) determine which features report handlers believe should be added and (3) describe processing shortcomings from reporters' perspectives. Design: A cross-sectional study with a descriptive qualitative design. Methods: A descriptive qualitative cross-sectional study was conducted in two Finnish wellbeing service counties between January and February 2024. A total of 755 participants who used patient safety incident reporting software completed the Users' Perceptions of Patient Safety Incident Reporting Software survey. Their free-text responses ( Results: Most respondents (66%) had a nursing background, and over half (51%) handled reports. Respondents had varying perceptions of software handling features that supported or challenged report processing, and they identified more features as challenging than supportive. They suggested changes to the anonymity and visibility of reports and the technical handiness of software. Respondents described the following report processing shortcomings: reports were not discussed within workplaces; discussion caused blaming; no concrete changes occurred after reporting; reporters did not hear about reports after reporting; reported incidents were underestimated and processing was not objective. Conclusion: The findings indicate that it is time to critically evaluate the usefulness of reporting software. Incident report handlers need optimum tools to process valuable client and patient safety information. Furthermore, incident report processing procedures require changes to assure reporters that it is meaningful and secure to report all patient safety incidents they observe or are involved in. Implications for Nursing Management: This study highlights the need for improvements in incident reporting software from the perspective of report processing. Additionally, report processing structures and methods must be clarified.
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.