Comparison of Incident Information Management System (IIMS) users' (n=1708) and non-users' (n=445) training experiences*
| Training experience | Results of χ2 analyses comparing IIMS users and non-users | ||
| Users | Non-users | ||
| (1) Undertook IIMS training | |||
| Yes | 1484 (87.1%) | 324 (73.1%) | |
| No | 220 (12.9%) | 119 (26.9%) | |
| Total | 1704 (100%) | 443 (100%) | |
| χ2=51.47, df 1, p=0.000 | |||
| (2) Form of IIMS training | |||
| Presentation/course | 960 (64.4%) | 208 (63.4%) | |
| Colleague explained | 294 (19.7%) | 65 (19.8%) | |
| Online | 184 (12.3%) | 43 (13.1%) | |
| CD/DVD | 53 (3.6%) | 12 (3.7%) | |
| Total | 1491 (100%) | 328 (100%) | |
| χ2=0.176, df 3, p=0.981 | |||
| (3) ‘The training I received provided me with the skills to report an incident on IIMS’ | |||
| Agree strongly/agree | 1141 (77.0%) | 201 (61.7%) | |
| Neutral | 115 (7.8%) | 55 (16.9%) | |
| Disagree strongly/disagree | 225 (15.2%) | 70 (21.5%) | |
| Total | 1481 (100%) | 326 (100%) | |
| χ2=38.52, df 2, p=0.000 | |||
↵* Of the 2185 survey participants, 2153 specified whether they had used IIMS and are the focus of this table. Of these, six did not answer item 1. While 1808 said they undertook IIMS training (item 1), 1819 specified their type of training (item 2). Of these, 12 did not rate their training (item 3).