Abstract:BACKGROUND: The National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) collects reports about patient safety incidents in England. Government regulators use NRLS data to assess the safety of hospitals. This study aims to examine whether annual hospital incident reporting rates can be used as a surrogate indicator of individual hospital safety. Secondly assesses which hospital characteristics are correlated with high incident reporting rates and whether a high reporting hospital is safer than those lower reporting hospitals. Finally, it assesses which health-care professionals report more incidents of patient harm, which report more near miss incidents and what hospital factors encourage reporting. These findings may suggest methods for increasing the utility of reporting systems.METHODS: This study used a mix methods approach for assessing NRLS data. The data were investigated using Pareto analysis and regression models to establish which patients are most vulnerable to reported harm. Hospital factors were correlated with institutional reporting rates over one year to examine what factors influenced reporting. Staff survey findings regarding hospital safety culture were correlated with reported rates of incidents causing harm; no harm and death to understand what barriers influence error disclosure.FINDINGS: 5,879,954 incident reports were collected from acute hospitals over the decade. 70.3% of incidents produced no harm to the patient and 0.9% were judged by the reporter to have caused severe harm or death. Obstetrics and Gynaecology reported the most no harm events [OR 1.61(95%CI: 1.12 to 2.27), p<0.01] and pharmacy was the hospital location where most near-misses were captured [OR 3.03(95%CI: 2.04 to 4.55), p<0.01]. Clinicians were significantly more likely to report death than other staff [OR 3.04(95%CI: 2.43 to 3.80) p<0.01]. A higher ratio of clinicians to beds correlated with reduced rate of harm reported [RR = -1.78(95%Cl: -3.33 to -0.23), p = 0.03]. Litigation claims per bed were significantly negatively associated with incident reports. Patient satisfaction and mortality outcomes were not significantly associated with reporting rates. Staff survey responses revealed that keeping reports confidential, keeping staff informed about incidents and giving feedback on safety initiatives increased reporting rates [r = 0.26 (p<0.01), r = 0.17 (p = 0.04), r = 0.23 (p = 0.01), r = 0.20 (p = 0.02)].CONCLUSION: The NRLS is the largest patient safety reporting system in the world. This study did not demonstrate many hospital characteristics to significantly influence overall reporting rate. There were no association between size of hospital, number of staff, mortality outcomes or patient satisfaction outcomes and incident reporting rate. The study did show that hospitals where staff reported more incidents had reduced litigation claims and when clinician staffing is increased fewer incidents reporting patient harm are reported, whilst near misses remain the same. Certain specialties report more near misses than others, and doctors report more harm incidents than near misses. Staff survey results showed that open environments and reduced fear of punitive response increases incident reporting. We suggest that reporting rates should not be used to assess hospital safety. Different healthcare professionals focus on different types of safety incidents and focusing on these areas whilst creating a responsive, confidential learning environment will increase staff engagement with error disclosure.

Reporting Bowel Surgeons’ Death Rates Did Not Lead to “Gaming”

Chance of Identifying Poor Surgeons from Mortality Data is Low, Say Analysts

Hospitals are "gaming" data on common operations, leading surgeon says.

How the Message from Mortality Figures Was Missed at Mid Staffs

Cardiac Surgeons at Birmingham Hospital Must Submit Weekly Mortality Data after Higher Than Expected Deaths

Improving risk models for patients having emergency bowel cancer surgery using linked electronic health records: a national cohort study

Surgical Outcome Reporting. Moving from a Comic to a Tragic Opera?

Perception of Safety of Surgical Practice Among Operating Room Personnel From Survey Data Is Associated With All-cause 30-day Postoperative Death Rate in South Carolina

Have changes in colorectal surgery training impacted on mortality in cancer patients? A retrospective cohort study of 51,562 procedures

The contribution of the anaesthetist to risk-adjusted mortality after cardiac surgery

Impact of the thresholds of surgical volume on mortality in oncological digestive surgery: A French National Cohort

Bariatric surgery and all‐cause mortality: A methodological review of studies using a non‐surgical comparator

Bariatric Surgery in the United Kingdom: A Cohort Study of Weight Loss and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Clinical Care

Trends and outcomes for cardiac surgery in the United Kingdom from 2002 to 2016

Unexpected deaths after endocrine surgery: learning from rare events using a national audit of surgical mortality

Can Patient Safety Incident Reports Be Used to Compare Hospital Safety? Results from a Quantitative Analysis of the English National Reporting and Learning System Data

Reporting of core outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials over the past 25 years (systematic review)

Impact of cumulative experience on the quality of screening colonoscopy: A 13-year observational study

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

Patients Undergoing Elective Inpatient Major Therapeutic Procedures in Florida Had No Significant Change in Hospital Mortality or Mortality-Related Comorbidities Between 2007 and 2019

Reduction in Long-term Mortality After Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass Compared to Nonsurgical Patients With Severe Obesity