The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Barriers to incident reporting in a healthcare system
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Learning from mistakes is key to maintaining and improving the quality of care in the NHS. This study investigates the willingness of healthcare professionals to report the mistakes of others. METHODS: The questionnaire used in this research included nine short scenarios describing either a violation of a protocol, compliance with a protocol, or improvisation (where no protocol exists). By developing different versions of the questionnaire, each scenario was presented with a good, poor, or bad outcome for the patient. The participants (n = 315) were doctors, nurses, and midwives from three English NHS trusts who volunteered to take part in the study and represented 53% of those originally contacted. Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to report the incident described in each scenario to a senior member of staff. RESULTS: The findings of this study suggest that healthcare professionals, particularly doctors, are reluctant to report adverse events to a superior. The results show that healthcare professionals, as might be expected, are most likely to report an incident to a colleague when things go wrong (F(2,520) = 82.01, p < 0.001). The reporting of incidents to a senior member of staff is also more likely, irrespective of outcome for the patient, when the incident involves the violation of a protocol (F(2,520) = 198.77, p < 0.001. It appears that, although the reporting of an incident to a senior member of staff is generally not very likely, particularly among doctors, it is most likely when the incident represents the violation of a protocol with a bad outcome. CONCLUSIONS: An alternative means of organisational learning that relies on the identification of system (latent) failures before, rather than after, an adverse event is proposed.
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
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
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007x312487 · Cited by 101
Employees’ perceptions of patient safety culture in Norwegian nursing homes and home care services
Ree, E., & Wiig, S. (2019) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4456-8 · Cited by 72
Winsvold Prang, I., & Jelsness-Jørgensen, L.-P. (2014) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2014.07.003 · Cited by 70
Social Disparities in Patient Safety in Primary Care: A Systematic Review
Piccardi, C., Detollenaere, J., Vanden Bussche, P., & Willems, S. (2018) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-018-0828-7 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Lawton, R.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-03-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-18
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2112949450
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.00
- 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: Barriers to incident reporting in a healthcare system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qhc.11.1.15
- The paper
- Lawton, R. (2002). Barriers to incident reporting in a healthcare system. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.1.15
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.