Authors | Sample size | Target population | Location | Design | Aim | Method of data collection | Nature of questions eliciting patient reported PSIs | Timing of reporting and length of patient recall period | Comparison with other methods of error/incident detection | Concordance across error detection methods |
Agoritsas et al15 | 1518 | Recently hospitalised adults from across the entire hospital population | Switzerland | Cross-sectional | To investigate the frequency of undesirable events reported by recently discharged patients, and to identify correlates of undesirable events | Mailed survey | Predefined categories: survey on ‘undesirable events’ | Postdischarge: recall period unclear | No | – |
Fowler et al23 | 2582 | Recently hospitalised adults from medical and surgical units across 16 hospitals | USA | Cross-sectional | To determine rates at which patients experience what they considered to be AEs, to describe the kinds of events they reported and to identify the correlates of these reports | Telephone survey | Predefined categories using open-ended questions: interviews on four ‘categories of care’ | Postdischarge: average 9 months | No | – |
Friedman et al24 | 201 | Adults attending an emergency department | USA | Prospective cohort | To investigate whether patients or their families can identify AEs in the emergency department, categorise these events and compare these reports with current methods | Mixed methods: telephone survey and medical record review | Open-ended questions: interviews about ‘problems or mistakes in care received, or hurt suffered as a result of care’ | Postdischarge: <7 days | Medical record review and hospital patient and visitor incident database | None of the patient reported AEs were recorded within the patient medical records or the hospital reporting database |
Kaboli et al25 | 126 | Adult inpatients in a general medicine unit | USA | Prospective cohort | To analyse and compare four different methods of detecting medication misadventures in order to determine the optimal system for reporting clinically observed medication misadventures | Inpatient interview | Predefined categories but open-ended questions: interviews on ‘medication misadventures’ | At, or <2 days postdischarge: recall period unclear | Physician reports, nurse reports and medical record review | Six patient reports (50% of physician-classified reports) were confirmed by medical record review. One patient report (8% of physician-classified reports) was confirmed by medical record review and nurse report, with one further patient report (8% of physician-classified reports) confirmed by medical record review and physician report |
López et al26 | 2582 | Recently hospitalised adults from medical and surgical units across 16 hospitals | USA | Cross-sectional | To assess how disclosure of AEs by medical personnel affects patients' ratings of the quality of care | Telephone survey | Predefined categories but open-ended questions: interviews on four ‘categories of care’ | Postdischarge: average 9 months | No | – |
Schwappach27 | 125 | Adult inpatients from medical and surgical units across two hospitals | Switzerland | Cross-sectional with follow-up | To develop and pilot a brief patient safety survey applicable to inpatient care in Swiss hospitals | Mixed methods: inpatient survey with follow-up interview | Predefined categories: survey on ‘undesirable events’ | Unclear | No | – |
Schwappach and Wernli28 | 479 | Adult oncology patients | Switzerland | Cross-sectional | To explore chemotherapy patients' experiences of drug administration safety and to investigate the relationship between perceptions of risk and harm from error, staff safety practices and patients' engagement in error prevention strategies | Mailed survey | Predefined categories: 1-item on a survey | Unclear | No | – |
Weingart et al17 | 228 | Adult inpatients in a general medicine unit | USA | Prospective cohort | To elicit incident reports from hospitalised inpatients to identify and characterise AEs and near-miss errors | Mixed methods: inpatient interviews, telephone follow-up, and medical record review | Open-ended questions: interviews about ‘problems or mistakes in care received or hurt suffered as a result of care’ |
| Medical record review and staff incident reporting database | No overlap with staff incident reporting database. Medical record review confirmed 40% of patient reported PSIs |
Weingart et al29 | 193 | Adult oncology patients | USA | Cross-sectional | To investigate the ability of patients in ambulatory specialty care to recognise medical errors and iatrogenic injuries | Inpatient interview | Open-ended questions: interviews about ‘anything unsafe experienced during care’ | <7 days | No | – |
Weingart et al30 | 209 | Adult inpatients in a general medicine unit | USA | Cross-sectional | To consider lessons learnt from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events among medical inpatients | Inpatient survey | Predefined categories: survey about medication errors and quality of care | At or postdischarge: recall period unclear | No | – |
Weissman et al31 | 998 | Recently hospitalised adults from medical and surgical units across 16 hospitals | USA | Cross-sectional | To compare AEs reported in postdischarge patient interviews with AEs detected in medical record review | Mixed methods: telephone survey and medical record review | Predefined categories but open-ended questions: interviews on four ‘categories of care’ | Postdischarge: 6–12 months | Medical record review undertaken by (1) trained nurses and then (2) physicians | Concordance between medical record review and patient survey found to be 77% overall |
Van den Bemt et al32 | 620 | Inpatients in paediatric and internal medicine units | The Netherlands | Prospective cohort | To investigate the relative value of adverse drug events reported by doctors, nurses and patients | Inpatient interview | Predefined categories but open-ended questions: interviews about ‘adverse drug events’ only | <24 h | Staff incident reporting database | 1% concordance between physician and patient reports; 2% concordance between nurse and patients reports |
Zhu et al33 | 2582 | Recently hospitalised adults from medical and surgical units across 16 hospitals | USA | Cross-sectional | To examine the degree to which physician reviewers agreed that patient reports of ‘negative effects’ constituted AEs, and to identify questionnaire items that affected reviewers' judgements | Telephone survey | Predefined categories using open-ended questions: interviews on four ‘categories of care’ | Postdischarge: 6–12 months | No | – |
Glossary of headings
Nature of questions eliciting patient reported PSIs: This refers to the degree of structure in the question(s) eliciting PSIs from patients. Papers used: (1) predefined categories of PSI only (survey method); (2) predefined categories of PSI, but with open-ended answer formats (structured interview method); or (3) open-ended questions only (semistructured interview method).
Timing of reporting and length of recall period: This refers to when patients were asked to report in relation to when they experienced the PSI, and the length of the recall period.
Comparison with other methods of error/incident detection: This refers to the comparisons made with other methods of detecting error or PSIs (eg, medical record review, physician/nurse/pharmacist incident reporting).
Concordance across error detection methods? This refers to the degree of overlap between error detection methods, that is, the percentage agreement between patient reports and medical record review, or physician or nurse reporting.
AE, adverse event; PSI, patient safety incident.