Context: Little is known about hospitals’ adverse-event-reporting systems, or how they use reported data to improve practices. This information is needed to assess effects of national patient-safety initiatives, including implementation of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA). This survey generated baseline information on the characteristics of hospital adverse-event-reporting systems and processes, for use in assessing progress in improvements to reporting.
Methods: The Adverse Event Reporting Survey, developed by Westat, was administered in September 2005 through January 2006, using a mixed-mode (mail/telephone) survey with a stratified random sample of 2050 non-federal US hospitals. Risk managers were the respondents. An 81% response rate was obtained, for a sample of 1652 completed surveys.
Results: Virtually all hospitals reported they have centralised adverse-event-reporting systems, although characteristics varied. Scores on four performance indexes suggest that only 32% of hospitals have established environments that support reporting, only 13% have broad staff involvement in reporting adverse events, and 20–21% fully distribute and consider summary reports on identified events. Because survey responses are self-reported by risk managers, these may be optimistic assessments of hospital performance.
Conclusions: Survey findings document the current status of hospital adverse-event-reporting systems and point to needed improvements in reporting processes. PSQIA liability protections for hospitals reporting data to patient-safety organisations should also help stimulate improvements in hospitals’ internal reporting processes. Other mechanisms that encourage hospitals to strengthen their reporting systems, for example, strong patient-safety programmes, also would be useful.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Competing interests: None.
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was provided by the Human Subjects Protection Committee of the RAND Corporation.
See Commentary, p 400