The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems
Open accessAbstract
Reducing mishaps from medical management is central to efforts to improve quality and lower costs in health care. Nearly 100 000 patients are estimated to die preventable deaths annually in hospitals in the United States, with many more incurring injuries at an annual cost of $9 billion. Underreporting of adverse events is estimated to range from 50%-96% annually.1–3 This annual toll exceeds the combined number of deaths and injuries from motor and air crashes, suicides, falls, poisonings, and drownings.4 Many stakeholders in health care have begun to work together to resolve the moral, scientific, legal, and practical dilemmas of medical mishaps. To achieve this goal, an environment fostering a rich reporting culture must be created to capture accurate and detailed data about nuances of care. Outcomes in complex work depend on the integration of individual, team, technical, and organisational factors. 5 6 A continuum of cascade effects exists from apparently trivial incidents to near misses and full blown adverse events. 7 8 Consequently, the same patterns of causes of failure and their relations precede both adverse events and near misses. Only the presence or absence of recovery mechanisms determines the actual outcome.9 The National Research Council defines a safety “incident” as an event that, under slightly different circumstances, could have been an accident.10 Focusing on data for near misses may add noticeably more value to quality improvement than a sole focus on adverse events. Schemes for reporting near misses, “close calls,” or sentinel (“warning”) events have been institutionalised in aviation,w1 w2 nuclear power technology,w3 w4 petrochemical processing, steelw5 production,w6 military operations, and air transportation.w7-w11 In health care, efforts are now being made to create incident reporting systems for medical near misses 8 11–15 to supplement the limited …
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Do House Officers Learn From Their Mistakes?
Wu, A. W. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460160067031 · Cited by 565
Cited by
Ammenwerth, E., Schnell-Inderst, P., Machan, C., & Siebert, U. (2008) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2667 · Cited by 668
Measuring errors and adverse events in health care
Thomas, E. J., & Petersen, L. A. (2003) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20147.x · Cited by 455
Beyond Blame: Cultural Barriers to Medical Incident Reporting
Waring, J. J. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.055 · Cited by 386
Wrong-Side/Wrong-Site, Wrong-Procedure, and Wrong-Patient Adverse Events: Are They Preventable?
Seiden, S. C. (2006) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.141.9.931 · Cited by 283
Keep your eyes on the road: young driver crash risk increases according to duration of distraction
Simons-Morton, B. G., Guo, F., Klauer, S. G., Ehsani, J. P., & Pradhan, A. K. (2014) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.021 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Barach, P.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-03-18
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7237
- Pages
- 759-763
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120530657
- Cited by
- 1,109
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 44.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759
- The paper
- Barach, P. (2000). Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.