Clinical safety of England's national programme for IT: A retrospective analysis of all reported safety events 2005 to 2011
Abstract
Objective To analyse patient safety events associated with England's national programme for IT (NPfIT).Methods Retrospective analysis of all safety events managed by a dedicated IT safety team between September 2005 and November 2011 was undertaken. Events were reviewed against an existing classification for problems associated with IT. The proportion of reported events per problem type, consequences, source of report, resolution within 24h, time of day and day of week were examined. Sub-group analyses were undertaken for events involving patient harm and those that occurred on a large scale.Results Of the 850 events analysed, 68% (n=574) described potentially hazardous circumstances, 24% (n=205) had an observable impact on care delivery, 4% (n=36) were a near miss, and 3% (n=22) were associated with patient harm, including three deaths (0·35%). Eleven events did not have a noticeable consequence (1%) and two were complaints (<1%). Amongst the events 1606 separate contributing problems were identified. Of these 92% were predominately associated with technical rather than human factors. Problems involving human factors were four times as likely to result in patient harm than technical problems (25% versus 8%; OR 3·98, 95%CI 1·90-8.34). Large-scale events affecting 10 or more individuals or multiple IT systems accounted for 23% (n=191) of the sample and were significantly more likely to result in a near miss (6% versus 4%) or impact the delivery of care (39% versus 20%; p<0·001).Conclusion Events associated with NPfIT reinforce that the use of IT does create hazardous circumstances and can lead to patient harm or death. Large-scale patient safety events have the potential to affect many patients and clinicians, and this suggests that addressing them should be a priority for all major IT implementations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This study has also added to an emerging but limited UK evidence base that has reported potential negative impacts of electronic records on the doctor-patient relationship and patient safety in secondary care.
“This study has also added to an emerging but limited UK evidence base that has reported potential negative impacts of electronic records on the doctor-patient relationship [35] and patient safety in secondary care [36–38].”
From Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory (2017) · cites this paper as [38]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 100
- Authors
- Magrabi, F., Baker, M., Sinha, I., Ong, M.-S., Harrison, S., Kidd, M. R., Runciman, W. B., & Coiera, E.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- NHS Digital (GB)
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
- Flinders University (AU)
- University of South Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Magrabi, Farah
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 198-206
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006934779
- Semantic Scholar
- bc480f082e3f52c9590496734f7e8d46d17fd9ea
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12
- FWCI
- 25.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
- Keywords
- National Programme for IT, patient safety, health information technology, patient harm, human factors, technical challenges, near misses, IT implementation, England
- MeSH terms
- Delivery of Health Care, England, Humans, Medical Informatics, Retrospective Studies, Risk Management, State Medicine, User-Computer Interface, Safety Management, Medical Errors, Equipment Failure Analysis, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Electronic Health Records
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