You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Error management
Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale: a measure of doctor and nurse attitudes to adverse event reporting
  1. B Wilson1,
  2. H L Bekker2,
  3. F Fylan3
  1. 1
    Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
  2. 2
    Institute of Health Sciences and Public Health Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  3. 3
    Department of Psychology, School of Health and Human Sciences, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK
  1. Dr B Wilson, Research Associate, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; barbara.wilson{at}christie-tr.nwest.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objective: To develop a validated measure of professionals’ attitudes towards clinical adverse event reporting (CAER).

Design: Cross-sectional survey with follow-up.

Participants: 201 doctors and nurse/nurse-midwives undergoing postqualification training in Leeds, York and Hull Universities in 2003.

Materials: A questionnaire which comprised 73 items extracted from interviews with professionals; a second, statistically reduced version of this questionnaire.

Results: The analysis supported a 25-item questionnaire comprising five factors: blame as a consequence of reporting (six items); criteria for reporting (six items); colleagues’ expectations (six items); perceived benefits of reporting events (five items); and clarity of reporting procedures (two items). The resulting questionnaire, the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Effects Scale (RoCAES), had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.83) and external reliability (Spearman’s correlation = 0.65). The construct validity hypothesis—doctors have less positive attitudes towards CAER than nurses—was supported (t = 5.495; p<0.0001).

Conclusion: Initial development of an evidence-based, psychometrically rigorous measure of attitudes towards CAER has been reported. Following additional testing, RoCAES may be used to systematically elicit professionals’ views about, and inform interventions to improve, reporting behaviour.

https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.021691

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding: Department of Health Sciences, University of York PhD Scholarship. The author’s work is independent of the funding source.

    • Competing interests: None.

    • Ethics approval: Approval was obtained from module tutors to contact students in their classes. Local ethics committee approval was not required, as the study was undertaken in August/September 2003 with a student sample.

    • Contributors: BW (Guarantor); HLB; FF—each fulfils the criteria of authorship as laid out in the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to medical journals. No other person or persons fulfil this requirement.