Susan M Robinson1, Ben F Walker, Ruth M Brown. 1. aEmergency Department, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge bThe College of Emergency Medicine cEmergency Department, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if emergency medicine specific triggers for completing an incident form could be agreed and if a common definition for contributory factors could be achieved. Such definitions could be used to improve safety within the emergency department (ED) and share learning across the specialty. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifteen ED safety leads in the UK and Ireland were invited to participate in a Delphi study. This process took 1 year to complete. In the first round, participants listed 20 events that should be reported as an adverse event and 20 contributory factors that could contribute to risk or harm. An 80% concordance level was sought for both aspects. RESULTS: Eighty-four per cent of safety leads participated in the first round, although this decreased over subsequent rounds to 43%. Four hundred and eighty-five triggers were initially suggested; eventually, 27 triggers that should always or usually be reported achieved 80% concordance. Sixty-eight contributory factors were initially identified with eventual agreement being reached on 27 remediable contributory factors. CONCLUSION: The process demonstrated agreement amongst emergency physicians in the UK and Ireland on the type of events that should be formally reported. The lists emerging from this process should not be viewed as exhaustive; rather they should be used to encourage the reporting of incidents and designing safer systems and processes within the ED.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if emergency medicine specific triggers for completing an incident form could be agreed and if a common definition for contributory factors could be achieved. Such definitions could be used to improve safety within the emergency department (ED) and share learning across the specialty. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifteen ED safety leads in the UK and Ireland were invited to participate in a Delphi study. This process took 1 year to complete. In the first round, participants listed 20 events that should be reported as an adverse event and 20 contributory factors that could contribute to risk or harm. An 80% concordance level was sought for both aspects. RESULTS: Eighty-four per cent of safety leads participated in the first round, although this decreased over subsequent rounds to 43%. Four hundred and eighty-five triggers were initially suggested; eventually, 27 triggers that should always or usually be reported achieved 80% concordance. Sixty-eight contributory factors were initially identified with eventual agreement being reached on 27 remediable contributory factors. CONCLUSION: The process demonstrated agreement amongst emergency physicians in the UK and Ireland on the type of events that should be formally reported. The lists emerging from this process should not be viewed as exhaustive; rather they should be used to encourage the reporting of incidents and designing safer systems and processes within the ED.