Objective: The study examined the differences between physicians and clinical assistants in their preferences for a statewide medical error reporting system. Background: Medical error reporting systems have been proposed as a means for studying the causes of medical error. Knowledge of user similarities and differences is needed for the development of design guidelines for medical error reporting systems. Method: Separate focus groups composed of 8 physicians and 6 clinical assistants (physician clinical support staff) were conducted. One-hour focus group meetings were conducted via toll-free teleconference lines one to two times per month for 9 months. All conversations were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. An inductive content analysis was conducted. Results: Eighty-six major and minor themes emerged. Differences between physicians and clinical assistants included rules and regulations governing the use of the system, the medium of reporting, and aspects of the organization that may affect reporting levels. Conclusions: Although physicians and clinical assistants shared similar preferences and beliefs surrounding error reporting, there were differences that need to be considered if medical error reporting systems are to be effective. Application: To successfully deploy a medical error reporting system, the system itself must be designed for the potential users. This study uncovered previously underappreciated issues that should be incorporated into the design and implementation process. Actual or potential applications of this research include the improvement of the design and implementation of medical error reporting systems to account for the needs of different types of users.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aspden, P., Corrigan, J., Wolcott, J., & Erickson, S. (2004). Patient safety achieving a new standard for care.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
2.
Barach, P., & Small, S. (2000). Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: Lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. British Medical Journal, 320, 759–763.
3.
Battles, J. B., Kaplan, H. S., Van der Schaaf, T. W., & Shea, C. E. (1998). The attributes of medical event-reporting systems: Experience with a prototype medical event-reporting system for transfusion medicine. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 122, 231–238.
4.
Beasley, J., Escoto, K., & Karsh, B. (2004). Design elements for a primary care medical error reporting system. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 103(1), 56–59.
5.
Beasley, J., Hankey, T. H., Erickson, R., Stange, K., Mundt, M., Elliott, M., et al. (2004). How many problems do family physicians manage at each encounter? A WReN study. Annals of Family Medicine, 2, 405–410.
6.
Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational context. Organization Studies, 15, 275–295.
7.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research.London: Sage.
8.
Corser, W. (2000). The contemporary nurse-physician relationship: Insights from scholars outside the two professions. Nursing Outlook, 48, 263–268.
9.
Donaldson, M., Yordy, K., Lohr, K., & Vanselow, N. (1996). Primary care: America's health in a new era.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
Dovey, S., Meyers, D., Phillips, R., Green, L., Fryer, G., Gallher, J., et al. (2002). A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 11, 233–238.
11.
Elder, N., & Dovey, S. (2002). Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Family Practice, 51, 927–932.
12.
Flowers, L., & Riley, T. (2000). How states are responding to medical errors: An analysis of recent state legislative proposals.Portland, ME: National Academy for State Health Policy.
13.
Hamilton, K., Karsh, B., & Beasley, J. (2003 March). Medical error reporting systems: What are the related job stressors?Poster session presented at the APA-NIOSH Conference Work, Stress and Health: New Challenges in a Changing Workplace, Toronto, Canada.
14.
Hobgood, C., Xie, J., Weiner, B., & Hooker, J. (2004). Error identification, disclosure, and reporting: Practice patterns of three emergency medicine provider types. Academic Emergency Medicine, 11, 196–199.
15.
Johnson, C. (2002). Reasons for the failure of incident reporting in the healthcare and rail industries. In F. Redmill & T. Anderson (Eds.), Components of system safety: Proceedings of the 10th Safety-Critical Systems Symposium (pp. 31–60). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
16.
Karsh, B., Hamilton, K., & Beasley, J. (2002 May). On the development of an error reporting system. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference of Work With Display Units, Berchtesgaden, Germany.
17.
Kohn, L., Corrigan, J., & Donaldson, M. (1999). To err is human: Building a safer health system.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18.
Leape, L. (2002). Reporting of adverse events. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1633–1638.
19.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Lockhart-Wood, K. (2000). Collaboration between nurses and doctors in clinical practice. British Journal of Nursing, 9, 276–280.
21.
McMahan, E., Hoffman, K., & McGee, G. (1994). Physician-nurse relationships in clinical settings: A review and critique of the literature, 1966-1992. Medical Care Review, 51, 83–112.
22.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Pace, W., Staton, E., Higgins, G., Main, D., West, D., & Harris, D. (2003). Database design to ensure anonymous study of medical errors: A report from the ASIPS collaborative. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10, 531–540.
24.
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, H.R. 663. (2003). Retrieved January 2, 2004, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-544
25.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Sandars, J., & Esmail, A. (2003). The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: Understanding the diversity across studies. Family Practice, 20, 231–236.
27.
Sheard, T. (1980). The structure of conflict in nurse-physician relations. Supervisor Nurse, 11(8), 14–18.
28.
Sheikh, A., & Hurwitz, B. (2001). Setting up a database of medical error in general practice: Conceptual and methodological considerations. British Journal of General Practice, 51, 57–60.
29.
Stewart, D., & Shamdasani, P. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
Tolhurst, H., & Dean, S. (2004). Using teleconferencing to enable general practitioner participation in focus groups. Primary Health Care Research and Development, 5, 1–4.
31.
Uribe, C., Schweikhart, S., Pathak, D., Dow, M., & Marsh, G. (2002). Perceived barriers to medical-error reporting: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47, 263–280.
32.
Vincent, C., Stanhope, N., & Crowley-Murphy, M. (1999). Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: An empirical study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5, 13–21.
