PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15907018

Capturing more emergency department errors via an anonymous web-based reporting system.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: It is generally understood that errors occur during patient care in the emergency department (ED). However, the errors that are reported likely represent a fraction of those that occur. Increasing the error reporting rate would allow for more opportunities to investigate the root causes of errors and improve systems design as part of a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process. We present a model Web-based system for reporting of errors that occur in patient care in the ED. METHODS: We propose a Web-based system of error reporting. Utilizing Web technology permits secure, timely, and, optionally, anonymous reporting of errors. The Web page is readily accessible to users within the medical center. Reporting may be anonymous or the reporters may identify themselves. The reports are sorted by the user and entered based on the type of error and sent to a secure database. The database can be regularly reviewed by a designated person as part of an ongoing CQI process. CQI committees should then have more useful data to reference when designing system improvements. CONCLUSIONS: A Web-based error reporting implemented in this manner may improve error reporting because of the convenience it offers and the option of anonymity. More reporting should create more opportunities for system improvement.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rahul K Khare, Brad Uren, Robert L Wears. Capturing more emergency department errors via an anonymous web-based reporting system.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019514-200504000-00004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Communicative and strategic action in interpreted consultations in primary health care: a Habermasian perspective.

We report a qualitative study of accounts of interpreted consultations in UK primary care. The study sought to explore how three Habermasian tensions between (a) system and lifeworld, (b) communicative and strategic action, and (c) interpersonal and macropolitical spheres played out in the triadic consultation between clinician, interpreter and patient. In a total of 69 individual interviews and two focus groups, we collected narratives from service users (through interpreters or bilingual researchers), interpreters and doctors and other staff in general practice. We recorded, transcribed and analysed these, taking the story as the main unit of analysis. Our data suggest that the preconditions for communicative action are rarely met in the interpreted consultation. The interpreter's presence makes a dyadic interaction into a triad, adding considerable complexity to the social situation and generating operational and technical challenges. Lack of trust, intense pressure of time, mismatch of agendas (biomedical versus lifeworld), firm expectations of a specific outcome (e.g. referral, prescription) and profound power imbalances all promote strategic action (i.e. speech that seeks consciously or unconsciously to manipulate an outcome) rather than communicative action (i.e. sincere efforts to achieve understanding, and reach consensus) by all parties. In consultations interpreted by family members (an option traditionally seen as 'second best' by policy makers), the social situation is very different. Family members are generally trusted, share the lifeworld agenda, and shift the power balance in the patient's favour. The interpreter occupies multiple social roles, including translator, interpersonal mediator, system mediator, educator, advocate, and link worker. The essence of professionalism in interpreting is shifting judiciously between these potentially conflicting roles. We discuss the implications of our findings for communication with limited English speakers in healthcare consultations and for realizing contemporary policy goals such as concordance, shared decision-making, empowerment, and choice.

Communication Barriers↗