Cited by 98Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsElectronic Health Records SystemsOccupational Health and Safety Research

Toward a theoretical approach to medical error reporting system research and design

Open access
Karsh, Ben-Tzion, Escoto, Kamisha Hamilton, Beasley, John W., Holden, Richard J.·2006·Applied Ergonomics

Abstract

The release of the Institute of Medicine (Kohn et al., 2000) report "To Err is Human", brought attention to the problem of medical errors, which led to a concerted effort to study and design medical error reporting systems for the purpose of capturing and analyzing error data so that safety interventions could be designed. However, to make real gains in the efficacy of medical error or event reporting systems, it is necessary to begin developing a theory of reporting systems adoption and use and to understand how existing theories may play a role in explaining adoption and use. This paper presents the results of a 9-month study exploring the barriers and facilitators for the design of a statewide medical error reporting system and discusses how several existing theories of technology acceptance, adoption and implementation fit with many of the results. In addition we present an integrated theoretical model of medical error reporting system design and implementation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.07.003

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Few studies have done beliefs elicitation work with respect to health IT, and none to the authors' knowledge have revised TAM based on such work.

    “Few have done this kind of beliefs elicitation work with respect to health IT [70, 72, 76, 96, 102], and none to our knowledge have revised TAM based on such work.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karsh, B.-T., Escoto, K. H., Beasley, J. W., & Holden, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Karsh, Ben-Tzion
Venue
Applied Ergonomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-05
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
283-295
ISSN
0003-6870 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036042175
Cited by
98
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM008923)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Occupational Health and Safety Research
Keywords
patient safety, technology acceptance theory, technology adoption, implementation barriers and facilitators, reporting system design, safety interventions
MeSH terms
Equipment Design, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Physicians, Risk Management, Midwestern United States, Focus Groups, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review