Skip to main content
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2004 Feb;13(1):13–20. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2002.003376

Defining and classifying medical error: lessons for patient safety reporting systems

M Tamuz 1, E Thomas 1, K Franchois 1
PMCID: PMC1758057  PMID: 14757794

Abstract

Background: It is important for healthcare providers to report safety related events, but little attention has been paid to how the definition and classification of events affects a hospital's ability to learn from its experience.

Objectives: To examine how the definition and classification of safety related events influences key organizational routines for gathering information, allocating incentives, and analyzing event reporting data.

Methods: In semi-structured interviews, professional staff and administrators in a tertiary care teaching hospital and its pharmacy were asked to describe the existing programs designed to monitor medication safety, including the reporting systems. With a focus primarily on the pharmacy staff, interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative research methods.

Results: Eighty six interviews were conducted, including 36 in the hospital pharmacy. Examples are presented which show that: (1) the definition of an event could lead to under-reporting; (2) the classification of a medication error into alternative categories can influence the perceived incentives and disincentives for incident reporting; (3) event classification can enhance or impede organizational routines for data analysis and learning; and (4) routines that promote organizational learning within the pharmacy can reduce the flow of medication error data to the hospital.

Discussion: These findings from one hospital raise important practical and research questions about how reporting systems are influenced by the definition and classification of safety related events. By understanding more clearly how hospitals define and classify their experience, we may improve our capacity to learn and ultimately improve patient safety.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (156.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baker H. M. Rules outside the rules for administration of medication: a study in New South Wales, Australia. Image J Nurs Sch. 1997;29(2):155–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb01549.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barach P., Small S. D. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):759–763. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Billings C. E. Some hopes and concerns regarding medical event-reporting systems: lessons from the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998 Mar;122(3):214–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cullen D. J., Bates D. W., Small S. D., Cooper J. B., Nemeskal A. R., Leape L. L. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995 Oct;21(10):541–548. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30180-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hofer T. P., Kerr E. A., Hayward R. A. What is an error? Eff Clin Pract. 2000 Nov-Dec;3(6):261–269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Thomas E. J., Studdert D. M., Burstin H. R., Orav E. J., Zeena T., Williams E. J., Howard K. M., Weiler P. C., Brennan T. A. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care. 2000 Mar;38(3):261–271. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200003000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Vincent C., Stanhope N., Crowley-Murphy M. Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Feb;5(1):13–21. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00147.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES