Central or local incident reporting? A comparative study in Dutch GP out-of-hours services
Open Access
- 1 March 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Royal College of General Practitioners in British Journal of General Practice
- Vol. 61 (584), 183-187
- https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X561168
Abstract
Centralised incident reporting in a Dutch collaboration of nine out-of-hours services yielded very few incident reports. To improve incident reporting and the awareness of primary caregivers about patient safety issues, a local incident-reporting procedure was implemented. To compare the number and nature of incident reports collected in a local incident-reporting procedure (intervention) versus the currently used centralised incident-reporting procedure. Quasi experiment. Three GPs' out-of-hours services (OHSs) in the centre of the Netherlands participated over 2 years before and 2 years after the intervention. A local incident-reporting procedure was implemented in OHS1, in which participants were encouraged to report all occurring incidents. A local committee with peers analysed the reported incidents fortnightly in order to initiate improvements if necessary. In OHS2 and OHS3, the current centralised incident-reporting procedure was continued, where incidents were reported to an advisory committee of the board of directors of the OHSs collaboration and were assessed every 2 months. The main outcome measures were the number and nature of incidents reported. At baseline, participants reported fewer than 10 incidents per year each. In the follow-up period, the number of incidents reported in OHS1 increased 16-fold compared with the controls. The type of incidents reported did not alter. In the local incident-reporting procedure, improvements were implemented in a shorter time frame, but reports in the centralised incident-reporting procedure led to a more systematic addressing of general and recurring safety problems. It is likely that a local incident-reporting procedure increases the willingness to report and facilitates faster implementation of improvements. In contrast, the central procedure, by collating reports from many settings, seems better at addressing generic and recurring safety issues. The advantages of both approaches should be combined.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Feasibility of centre-based incident reporting in primary healthcare: the SPIEGEL studyBMJ Quality & Safety, 2011
- The challenge of improving patient safety in primary careBritish Journal of General Practice, 2009
- Prospective risk analysis of health care processes: A systematic evaluation of the use of HFMEA™ in Dutch health careErgonomics, 2009
- Feedback from incident reporting: information and action to improve patient safetyQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2009
- Specialty-based, voluntary incident reporting in neonatal intensive care: description of 4846 incident reportsArchives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal & Neonatal, 2008
- Mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice: A prospective observational studyBMC Family Practice, 2008
- Evaluation of an intervention aimed at improving voluntary incident reporting in hospitalsQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2007
- Incident reporting and patient safetyBMJ, 2007
- Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errorsQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2003
- Aus Fehlern lernen - Beispielfehler aus der ersten internationalen Studie über medizinische Fehler in der hausärztlichen VersorgungZeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, 2003