CONTEXT: Little is known about hospitals' adverse-event-reporting systems, or how they use reported data to improve practices. This information is needed to assess effects of national patient-safety initiatives, including implementation of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA). This survey generated baseline information on the characteristics of hospital adverse-event-reporting systems and processes, for use in assessing progress in improvements to reporting. METHODS: The Adverse Event Reporting Survey, developed by Westat, was administered in September 2005 through January 2006, using a mixed-mode (mail/telephone) survey with a stratified random sample of 2050 non-federal US hospitals. Risk managers were the respondents. An 81% response rate was obtained, for a sample of 1652 completed surveys. RESULTS: Virtually all hospitals reported they have centralised adverse-event-reporting systems, although characteristics varied. Scores on four performance indexes suggest that only 32% of hospitals have established environments that support reporting, only 13% have broad staff involvement in reporting adverse events, and 20-21% fully distribute and consider summary reports on identified events. Because survey responses are self-reported by risk managers, these may be optimistic assessments of hospital performance. CONCLUSIONS: Survey findings document the current status of hospital adverse-event-reporting systems and point to needed improvements in reporting processes. PSQIA liability protections for hospitals reporting data to patient-safety organisations should also help stimulate improvements in hospitals' internal reporting processes. Other mechanisms that encourage hospitals to strengthen their reporting systems, for example, strong patient-safety programmes, also would be useful.
CONTEXT: Little is known about hospitals' adverse-event-reporting systems, or how they use reported data to improve practices. This information is needed to assess effects of national patient-safety initiatives, including implementation of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA). This survey generated baseline information on the characteristics of hospital adverse-event-reporting systems and processes, for use in assessing progress in improvements to reporting. METHODS: The Adverse Event Reporting Survey, developed by Westat, was administered in September 2005 through January 2006, using a mixed-mode (mail/telephone) survey with a stratified random sample of 2050 non-federal US hospitals. Risk managers were the respondents. An 81% response rate was obtained, for a sample of 1652 completed surveys. RESULTS: Virtually all hospitals reported they have centralised adverse-event-reporting systems, although characteristics varied. Scores on four performance indexes suggest that only 32% of hospitals have established environments that support reporting, only 13% have broad staff involvement in reporting adverse events, and 20-21% fully distribute and consider summary reports on identified events. Because survey responses are self-reported by risk managers, these may be optimistic assessments of hospital performance. CONCLUSIONS: Survey findings document the current status of hospital adverse-event-reporting systems and point to needed improvements in reporting processes. PSQIA liability protections for hospitals reporting data to patient-safety organisations should also help stimulate improvements in hospitals' internal reporting processes. Other mechanisms that encourage hospitals to strengthen their reporting systems, for example, strong patient-safety programmes, also would be useful.
Authors: Alisa Khan; Maitreya Coffey; Katherine P Litterer; Jennifer D Baird; Stephannie L Furtak; Briana M Garcia; Michele A Ashland; Sharon Calaman; Nicholas C Kuzma; Jennifer K O'Toole; Aarti Patel; Glenn Rosenbluth; Lauren A Destino; Jennifer L Everhart; Brian P Good; Jennifer H Hepps; Anuj K Dalal; Stuart R Lipsitz; Catherine S Yoon; Katherine R Zigmont; Rajendu Srivastava; Amy J Starmer; Theodore C Sectish; Nancy D Spector; Daniel C West; Christopher P Landrigan; Brenda K Allair; Claire Alminde; Wilma Alvarado-Little; Marisa Atsatt; Megan E Aylor; James F Bale; Dorene Balmer; Kevin T Barton; Carolyn Beck; Zia Bismilla; Rebecca L Blankenburg; Debra Chandler; Amanda Choudhary; Eileen Christensen; Sally Coghlan-McDonald; F Sessions Cole; Elizabeth Corless; Sharon Cray; Roxi Da Silva; Devesh Dahale; Benard Dreyer; Amanda S Growdon; LeAnn Gubler; Amy Guiot; Roben Harris; Helen Haskell; Irene Kocolas; Elizabeth Kruvand; Michele Marie Lane; Kathleen Langrish; Christy J W Ledford; Kheyandra Lewis; Joseph O Lopreiato; Christopher G Maloney; Amanda Mangan; Peggy Markle; Fernando Mendoza; Dale Ann Micalizzi; Vineeta Mittal; Maria Obermeyer; Katherine A O'Donnell; Mary Ottolini; Shilpa J Patel; Rita Pickler; Jayne Elizabeth Rogers; Lee M Sanders; Kimberly Sauder; Samir S Shah; Meesha Sharma; Arabella Simpkin; Anupama Subramony; E Douglas Thompson; Laura Trueman; Tanner Trujillo; Michael P Turmelle; Cindy Warnick; Chelsea Welch; Andrew J White; Matthew F Wien; Ariel S Winn; Stephanie Wintch; Michael Wolf; H Shonna Yin; Clifton E Yu Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Lisa M McElroy; Amna Daud; Brittany Lapin; Olivia Ross; Donna M Woods; Anton I Skaro; Jane L Holl; Daniela P Ladner Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Jonathan D Burlison; Rebecca R Quillivan; Lisa M Kath; Yinmei Zhou; Sam C Courtney; Cheng Cheng; James M Hoffman Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Johanna I Westbrook; Ling Li; Elin C Lehnbom; Melissa T Baysari; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Rosemary Burke; Chris Conn; Richard O Day Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 2.038