Cited by 101Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

A Review of Medical Error Reporting System Design Considerations and a Proposed Cross-Level Systems Research Framework

Holden, Richard J., Karsh, Ben-Tzion·2007·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Objective: To review the literature on medical error reporting systems, identify gaps in the literature, and present an integrative cross-level systems model of reporting to address the gaps and to serve as a framework for understanding and guiding reporting system design and research. Background: Medical errors are thought to be a leading cause of death among adults in the United States. However, no review exists summarizing what is known about the barriers and facilitators for successful reporting systems, and no integrated model exists to guide further research into and development of medical error reporting systems. Method: Relevant literature was identified using online databases; references in relevant articles were searched for additional relevant articles. Results: The literature review identified components of medical error reporting systems, error reporting system design choices, barriers and incentives for reporting, and suggestions for successful reporting system design. Little theory was found to guide the published research. An integrative cross-level model of medical error reporting system design was developed and is proposed as a framework for understanding the medical error reporting literature, addressing existing limitations, and guiding future design and research. Conclusion: The medical error reporting research provides some guidance for designing and implementing successful reporting systems. The proposed cross-level systems model provides a way to understand this existing research. However, additional research is needed on reporting and related safety actions. The proposed model provides a framework for such future research. Application: This work can be used to guide the design, implementation, and study of medical error reporting systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1518/001872007x312487

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Studies using self-reported data, including this one, are limited by the possibility of reporters' recall bias or knowledge.

    “While studies using self-reported data, including this one, are limited by the possibility of reporters’ recall bias or knowledge,56 our methods may allow for a more complete representation of an incident and the underlying safety concern.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Karsh, Ben-Tzion
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2007-04
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
257-276
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2153449837
Cited by
101
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
medical errors, reporting system design, patient safety, research framework
MeSH terms
Humans, Information Systems, Risk Management, Safety, Systems Analysis, Medical Errors

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