The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospital: retrospective patient case note review
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a routine incident reporting system in identifying patient safety incidents. DESIGN: Two stage retrospective review of patients' case notes and analysis of data submitted to the routine incident reporting system on the same patients. SETTING: A large NHS hospital in England. POPULATION: 1006 hospital admissions between January and May 2004: surgery (n=311), general medicine (n=251), elderly care (n=184), orthopaedics (n=131), urology (n=61), and three other specialties (n=68). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of admissions with at least one patient safety incident; proportion and type of patient safety incidents missed by routine incident reporting and case note review methods. RESULTS: 324 patient safety incidents were identified in 230/1006 admissions (22.9%; 95% confidence interval 20.3% to 25.5%). 270 (83%) patient safety incidents were identified by case note review only, 21 (7%) by the routine reporting system only, and 33 (10%) by both methods. 110 admissions (10.9%; 9.0% to 12.8%) had at least one patient safety incident resulting in patient harm, all of which were detected by the case note review and six (5%) by the reporting system. CONCLUSION: The routine incident reporting system may be poor at identifying patient safety incidents, particularly those resulting in harm. Structured case note review may have a useful role in surveillance of routine incident reporting and associated quality improvement programmes.
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
Cited by
Temporal Trends in Rates of Patient Harm Resulting from Medical Care
Landrigan, C. P., Parry, G. J., Bones, C. B., Hackbarth, A. D., Goldmann, D. A., & Sharek, P. J. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1004404 · Cited by 1,144
Preventing Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Hospitals
Oliver, D., Healey, F., & Haines, T. P. (2010) · Clinics in Geriatric Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.cger.2010.06.005 · Cited by 480
Hogan, H., Healey, F., Neale, G., Thomson, R., Vincent, C., & Black, N. (2012) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-001159 · Cited by 358
An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns
Meeks, D. W., Smith, M. W., Taylor, L., Sittig, D. F., Scott, J. M., & Singh, H. (2014) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002578 · Cited by 207
Incident Reporting and Patient Safety
Vincent, C. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39071.441609.80 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Sari, A. B.-A., Sheldon, T. A., Cracknell, A., & Turnbull, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-12-15
- Volume
- 334
- Issue
- 7584
- Pages
- 79
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2161015778
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospital: retrospective patient case note review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39031.507153.ae
- The paper
- Sari, A. B.-A., Sheldon, T. A., Cracknell, A., & Turnbull, A. (2007). Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospital: retrospective patient case note review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39031.507153.ae
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.