Barriers to and Incentives for Safety Event Reporting in Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient safety events (PSEs) are common in healthcare and may be particularly prevalent in complex care settings such as emergency departments (EDs). Systems for reporting, analyzing, learning from and responding to incidents are promoted as a means to reduce adverse events by facilitating feedback, learning and system change. However, only 4-50% of PSEs are reported. Under-reporting masks the true number of PSEs and may reduce our ability to learn from and prevent repeat events. The goal of this study was to identify barriers that prevent PSE reporting and incentives that encourage reporting. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with front-line nursing staff and nurse managers in EDs across British Columbia to explore their perception of barriers to and incentives for PSE reporting. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, checked for accuracy and entered into NVivo 8 software. Data were analyzed thematically as they were acquired, and emerging themes were explored in subsequent interviews. One hundred six interviews were conducted with staff from 94 of the 98 EDs in British Columbia. Six main barriers to PSE reporting were identified: (1) time constraints, (2) a sense of futility, (3) fear of reprisal, (4) a lack of education on PSE reporting, (5) reports being viewed as indicators of incompetence and (6) an inaccessibility of reporting forms. Incentives for reporting included valuing PSE reporting, the availability of alternative reporting pathways and feedback and visible changes resulting from PSE reports. We identified barriers that restrain nurses from reporting PSEs and incentives that facilitate reporting. Our findings should be considered when developing systems to report and learn from PSEs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".