Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41426764›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Understanding Engagement With Incident Reporting Systems Among NHS Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Uday Mahajan, Salman Shoukat Ali Parpia, Meraj Akhtar, Ria Gupta, Vibhore Gupta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Uday MahajanTrauma and Orthopaedics, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, GBR.
Salman Shoukat Ali ParpiaAccident and Emergency Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, GBR.
Meraj AkhtarTrauma and Orthopaedics, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Lincoln, GBR.
Ria GuptaEmergency Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, GBR.
Vibhore GuptaEmergency Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Incident reporting systems such as Datix (London, UK) and Radar (Leeds, UK) are key components of the NHS's patient safety infrastructure. Whilst widely implemented, engagement with these systems varies across professional roles and settings. Aim The aim of the study is to explore how NHS healthcare professionals engage with incident reporting systems, identify perceived barriers, and gather suggestions for improvement. Methods A cross-sectional, anonymised online survey was distributed to doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and support staff working in a single large NHS hospital located in an urban area in the UK. The questionnaire included both closed- and open-ended questions covering system familiarity, usage, barriers, and perceptions. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative responses were reviewed thematically. Results Seventy-three professionals responded, with doctors forming the majority. Most participants were familiar with incident reporting systems, but submission rates were low, and many had never received formal training. Feedback following reports was inconsistent, and many respondents were unsure whether their reports led to meaningful change. Whilst most viewed the system as a safety tool, a notable proportion associated it with complaints or blame. Participants suggested that improved training, simplified reporting processes, and regular feedback would enhance engagement. Conclusion Incident reporting systems remain underutilised by NHS staff due to both practical and cultural barriers. Addressing these through targeted training, streamlined processes, and visible organisational learning may help shift perceptions and improve reporting behaviour.

Indexed as

clinical governancefeedback gapincident reportingnhs guidelinespatient’s safety

Identifiers

PMID41426764
PMCPMC12712396

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.