↓ Skip to main content

Experiences from ten years of incident reporting in health care: a qualitative study among department managers and coordinators

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
Title
Experiences from ten years of incident reporting in health care: a qualitative study among department managers and coordinators
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2876-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siw Carlfjord, Annica Öhrn, Anna Gunnarsson

Abstract

Incident reporting (IR) in health care has been advocated as a means to improve patient safety. The purpose of IR is to identify safety hazards and develop interventions to mitigate these hazards in order to reduce harm in health care. Using qualitative methods is a way to reveal how IR is used and perceived in health care practice. The aim of the present study was to explore the experiences of IR from two different perspectives, including heads of departments and IR coordinators, to better understand how they value the practice and their thoughts regarding future application. Data collection was performed in Östergötland County, Sweden, where an electronic IR system was implemented in 2004, and the authorities explicitly have advocated IR from that date. A purposive sample of nine heads of departments from three hospitals were interviewed, and two focus group discussions with IR coordinators took place. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Two main themes emerged from the data: "Incident reporting has come to stay" building on the categories entitled perceived advantages, observed changes and value of the IR system, and "Remaining challenges in incident reporting" including the categories entitled need for action, encouraged learning, continuous culture improvement, IR system development and proper use of IR. After 10 years, the practice of IR is widely accepted in the selected setting. IR has helped to put patient safety on the agenda, and a cultural change towards no blame has been observed. The informants suggest an increased focus on action, and further development of the tools for reporting and handling incidents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 23%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Other 7 5%
Lecturer 6 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 55 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 12%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 58 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#16,317,602
of 24,046,191 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,924
of 8,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,039
of 452,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#158
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,046,191 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.