
Background Patient safety incident reporting systems (PSRS) have been established for over a decade, but uncertainty remains regarding the role that they can and ought to play in quantifying healthcare-related harm and improving care. Objective To establish international, expert consensus on the purpose of PSRS regarding monitoring and learning from incidents and developing recommendations for their future role. Methods After a scoping review of the literature, semi-structured interviews with experts in PSRS were conducted. Based on these findings, a survey-based questionnaire was developed and subsequently completed by a larger expert panel. Using a Delphi approach, consensus was reached regarding the ideal role of PSRSs. Recommendations for best practice were devised. Results Forty recommendations emerged from the Delphi procedure on the role and use of PSRS. Experts agreed reporting system should not be used as an epidemiological tool to monitor the rate of harm over time or to appraise the relative safety of hospitals. They agreed reporting is a valuable mechanism for identifying organisational safety needs. The benefit of a national system was clear with respect to medication error, device failures, hospital-acquired infections and never events as these problems often require solutions at a national level. Experts recommended training for senior healthcare professionals in incident investigation. Consensus recommendation was for hospitals to take responsibility for creating safety solutions locally that could be shared nationally. Conclusions We obtained reasonable consensus among experts on aims and specifications of PSRS. This information can be used to reflect on existing and future PSRS, and their role within the wider patient safety landscape. The role of PSRS as instruments for learning needs to be elaborated and developed further internationally.
Significant event analysis, Consensus, Internationality, Delphi Technique, 610, INTENSIVE-CARE, LEARNING-SYSTEM, LESSONS, Interviews as Topic, AIMS-ICU, 616, SURVEILLANCE, Humans, critical incident review, QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, MEDICATION ERROR, HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS, Risk Management, Science & Technology, Medical Errors, Data Collection, Incident reporting, ADVERSE DRUG EVENTS, Health policy, Patient safety, Health Care Sciences & Services, Significant event analysis, critical incident review, HOSPITALS, Safety culture, Health Policy & Services, Patient Safety, Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Significant event analysis, Consensus, Internationality, Delphi Technique, 610, INTENSIVE-CARE, LEARNING-SYSTEM, LESSONS, Interviews as Topic, AIMS-ICU, 616, SURVEILLANCE, Humans, critical incident review, QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, MEDICATION ERROR, HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS, Risk Management, Science & Technology, Medical Errors, Data Collection, Incident reporting, ADVERSE DRUG EVENTS, Health policy, Patient safety, Health Care Sciences & Services, Significant event analysis, critical incident review, HOSPITALS, Safety culture, Health Policy & Services, Patient Safety, Life Sciences & Biomedicine
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 101 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
