A Review of Medical Error Reporting System Design Considerations and a Proposed Cross-Level Systems Research Framework

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1513 University Ave., Room 387, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Impact Factor: 1.69). 05/2007; 49(2):257-76. DOI: 10.1518/001872007X312487
Source: PubMed


To review the literature on medical error reporting systems, identify gaps in the literature, and present an integrative cross-level systems model of reporting to address the gaps and to serve as a framework for understanding and guiding reporting system design and research.
Medical errors are thought to be a leading cause of death among adults in the United States. However, no review exists summarizing what is known about the barriers and facilitators for successful reporting systems, and no integrated model exists to guide further research into and development of medical error reporting systems.
Relevant literature was identified using online databases; references in relevant articles were searched for additional relevant articles.
The literature review identified components of medical error reporting systems, error reporting system design choices, barriers and incentives for reporting, and suggestions for successful reporting system design. Little theory was found to guide the published research. An integrative cross-level model of medical error reporting system design was developed and is proposed as a framework for understanding the medical error reporting literature, addressing existing limitations, and guiding future design and research.
The medical error reporting research provides some guidance for designing and implementing successful reporting systems. The proposed cross-level systems model provides a way to understand this existing research. However, additional research is needed on reporting and related safety actions. The proposed model provides a framework for such future research.
This work can be used to guide the design, implementation, and study of medical error reporting systems.

Download full-text


Available from: Richard J Holden, Feb 28, 2015
    • "This indicates that workers were not considering the conditions lasting for days as normal. The scarcity of reports of long-lasting latent conditions is considered as a possible limitation of IRSs, although studies that discuss this possibility do not present empirical data (Holden and Karsh 2007; Dekker 2007). The severity scores of the latent conditions lasting for hours (mean ¼ 1.92, SD ¼ 0.28), minutes (mean ¼ 1.94, SD ¼ 0.28) and days (mean ¼ 1.71, SD ¼ 0.26) were not significantly different (p-value ¼ 0.141, for alpha ¼ 0.05). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Incident reporting systems (IRSs) are well-known for producing proactive information for safety management. However, there is little guidance on how the analysis of IRSs can provide feedback for improving those systems. Thus, the question addressed in the research reported in this paper is stated as, how can the analysis of IRSs support the identification of opportunities for improving their design? Case studies were carried out in the IRSs of three construction companies. A qualitative analysis of the IRSs was made, based on semistructured interviews, participant observation, direct observation in construction sites, and analysis of documents. A quantitative analysis was made of 946 incidents reported in 16 construction sites. Those events were classified according to types, severity, duration of latent conditions, and number of reports per reporter. The contribution of the research reported in this paper is three-fold, as follows: (1) there were lessons learned from the analysis of IRSs, indicating how existing data could be explored further; (2) based on those lessons, a set of guidelines for the design of IRSs was produced; and (3) quantitative analysis of incident reports was a contribution in itself, given the scarcity of empirical studies about predecessor events of accidents. The findings are expected to be useful for those designing and operating IRSs in the construction industry.
    Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 04/2015; 141(9):05015007. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000988 · 0.84 Impact Factor
    • "Our paper is one of the few studies that has drawn on well-founded theories to analyze error reporting. Pfeiffer et al. (2010), Probst and Graso (2011), Holden and Karsh (2007), and Zhao and Olivera (2006) have made exemplary attempts to incorporate intentional, psychological, communication, and managerial theories in the study of error reporting. However, their contribution is limited given that no studies have empirically demonstrated the predictive validity of these frameworks. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – In this paper we explore antecedents, namely reasons for/against error reporting, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control, of nurses' intentions to report their errors at work. Design/methodology/approach – A structured equation model with cross-sectional data was estimated to test our hypotheses on a sample of 188 Italian nurses. Findings – Reasons for/against error reporting were associated with attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control. Further, reasons against were related to nurses’ intentions to report errors whereas reasons for error reporting were not. Lastly, perceived control was found to partially mediate the effects of reasons against error reporting on nurses’ intentions to act. Research limitations – Self-report data were collected at one point in time. Practical implications – This study offers recommendations to healthcare managers on what factors may encourage nurses to report their errors. Social implications – Lack of error reporting prevents timely interventions. Our study contributes to documenting motivations that can persuade or dissuade nurses in this important decision. Originality/value – This study extends prior research on error reporting that lacks a strong theoretical foundation by drawing on behavioral reasoning theory.
    Journal of Managerial Psychology 03/2015; 30(2):118-132. DOI:10.1108/JMP-02-2013-0060 · 1.25 Impact Factor
    • "The model of HCP performance has proven useful in framing patient safety generally (DeBourgh & Prion, 2012) and especially in positing the performance mechanism that mediates between work system interventions (input) and safety outcomes (output) (Holden, 2011a; Holden, Brown, et al., 2011). The model has also been applied to conceptualize how multiple factors across levels interact to produce safety (Karsh & Brown, 2005, 2010), error reporting (Holden & Karsh, 2007), and behavioral outcomes, such as HCP use of technology (Holden & Karsh, 2007, 2009). The model is also at the heart of the campaign to make the goal of health care technology design to support HCP performance (Holden, 2011a; Karsh, 2009; Karsh, Weinger, Abbott, & Wears, 2010; Stead & Lin, 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The U.S. Institute of Medicine and health care experts have called for new approaches to manage health care quality problems. In this chapter, we focus on macroergonomics, a branch of human factors and ergonomics that is based on the systems approach and considers the organizational and sociotechnical context of work activities and processes. Selected macroergonomic approaches to health care quality and patient safety are described, such as the SEIPS (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) model of work system and patient safety and the model of health care professional performance. Focused reviews on job stress and burnout, workload, interruptions, patient-centered care, health information technology and medical devices, violations, and care coordination provide examples of macroergonomics contributions to health care quality and patient safety. Health care systems and processes clearly need to be systematically redesigned; examples of macroergonomic approaches, principles, and methods for health care system redesign are described. Further research linking macroergonomics and care processes/patient outcomes is needed. Other needs for macroergonomics research are highlighted, including understanding the link between worker outcomes (e.g., safety and well-being) and patient outcomes (e.g., patient safety) and macroergonomics of patient-centered care and care coordination.
    Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 10/2013; 8(1):4-54. DOI:10.1177/1557234X13492976
Show more