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.

A system factors analysis of “line, tube, and drain” incidents in the intensive care unit

A system factors analysis of airway events from the Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS)

Pediatric safety incidents from an intensive care reporting system

Toward learning from patient safety reporting systems

Creating the web-based intensive care unit safety reporting system

ICU incident reporting systems

Incidents relating to the intra-hospital transfer of critically ill patients: an analysis of the reports submitted to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study in Intensive Care

Building safety into ICU care

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care

Factors Associated With Nasogastric Tube Placement-Related Complications in a Single Academic Medical Center

Interprofessional, multitiered daily rounding management in a high-acuity hospital

Exploring medical device-related pressure injuries in a single intensive care setting: A longitudinal point prevalence study

Development and implementation of a clinical decision support system-based quality initiative to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections

Continuous Analysis of Critical Incidents for 92,136 Postanesthesia Care Unit Patients of a Chinese University Hospital.

Multinational Prospective Cohort Study of Incidence and Risk Factors for Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections over 18 Years in 281 ICUs of 9 Asian Countries

Postoperative complications: Does intensive care unit staff nursing make a difference?

Multinational prospective study of incidence and risk factors for central-line-associated bloodstream infections in 728 intensive care units of 41 Asian, African, Eastern European, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries over 24 years

The Clinical Impacts and Risk Factors for Non-Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection in 5046 Intensive Care Unit Patients: an Observational Study Based on Electronic Medical Records

Acute decompensation after removing a central line: practical approaches to increasing safety in the intensive care unit

Patterns of Safety Incidents in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

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