The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess awareness and use of the current incident reporting system and to identify factors inhibiting reporting of incidents in hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Anonymous survey of 186 doctors and 587 nurses from diverse clinical settings in six South Australian hospitals (response rate = 70.7% and 73.6%, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge and use of the current reporting system; barriers to incident reporting. RESULTS: Most doctors and nurses (98.3%) were aware that their hospital had an incident reporting system. Nurses were more likely than doctors to know how to access a report (88.3% v 43.0%; relative risk (RR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.63), to have ever completed a report (89.2% v 64.4%; RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61), and to know what to do with the completed report (81.9% v 49.7%; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13). Staff were more likely to report incidents which are habitually reported, often witnessed, and usually associated with immediate outcomes such as patient falls and medication errors requiring corrective treatment. Near misses and incidents which occur over time such as pressure ulcers and DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis were least likely to be reported. The most frequently stated barrier to reporting for doctors and nurses was lack of feedback (57.7% and 61.8% agreeing, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both doctors and nurses believe they should report most incidents, but nurses do so more frequently than doctors. To improve incident reporting, especially among doctors, clarification is needed of which incidents should be reported, the process needs to be simplified, and feedback given to reporters.
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
Physician Reporting Compared with Medical-Record Review to Identify Adverse Medical Events
O'Neil, A. C., Petersen, L. A., Cook, E. F., Bates, D. W., Lee, T. H., & Brennan, T. A. (1993) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-119-5-199309010-00004 · Cited by 315
Cited by
The problem with root cause analysis
Peerally, M. F., Carr, S., Waring, J., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2017) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005511 · Cited by 398
Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e318053674f · Cited by 259
The effects of power, leadership and psychological safety on resident event reporting
Appelbaum, N. P., Dow, A., Mazmanian, P. E., Jundt, D. K., & Appelbaum, E. N. (2016) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12947 · Cited by 216
Archer, S., Hull, L., Soukup, T., Mayer, E., Athanasiou, T., Sevdalis, N., & Darzi, A. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017155 · Cited by 100
Barriers to Medical Error Reporting for Physicians and Nurses
Soydemir, D., Seren Intepeler, S., & Mert, H. (2017) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/0193945916671934 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- Evans, S. M.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-02-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-43
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2150029453
- Cited by
- 636
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.28
- 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: Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qshc.2004.012559
- The paper
- Evans, S. M. (2006). Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.012559
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.