Table 2 Hypothesised (or expected) predictors of mitigation
Predictor characteristicsCharacteristic subcategories
Event reportReporter type (clinician/staff)
Intensive reporting week (yes/no)*
PracticeResidency/non-residency
Practice category (high-/low-quality testing processes)
EMR (yes/no)
No. of labs used (outside and inside)
Percentage time report normal lab results to patients
Percentage time report clinically insignificant abnormal lab results to patients
Percentage time report abnormal lab results to patients
Follow-up of abnormal results/results needing action are tracked (yes/no)
PatientAge
Race
Familiarity of reporter with patient’s health problems
Complex health problem (yes/no)
Chronic health problem (yes/no)
ErrorType error
Seriousness of error
Error related to specific patient (yes/no)
No. of errors reported
Cascade or independent errors (if more than one reported)
Location of errors
Seriousness of event
Frequency of encountering events like this
  • *Intensive reporting occurred at staggered intervals during four of the 32 reporting weeks for each of the eight participating practices. Participants at each practice were instructed to report every diagnostic testing process error that they observed during their intensive reporting weeks.