Masters Degrees (Epidemiology and Biostatistics)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/100764

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Epidemiology and Biostatistics) by Author "Swana, Nelisiwe"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The use of error reporting data in patient safety research
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2019-04) Swana, Nelisiwe; Dudley, Lilian; Klemp, Kerstin; Nyasulu, Peter S.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Dept. of Global Health. Epidemiology and Biostatistics.
    ENGLISH SUMMARY : Background: Error reporting is the only data source designed specifically to generate patient safety data, yet its ability to report comprehensively on patient safety has not been assessed. This study aimed to assess the capability of error reporting data to report comprehensively on adverse events. The research question that guided this study was: “What are the perceptions of patient safety experts regarding the use of error reporting data in patient safety?” The objectives of the study were set to determine the demographic characteristics of those who use error reporting in patient safety, i.e., their professional backgrounds, area of practice, countries, languages and years of experience with error reporting data. The study also aimed to determine how they perceive error reporting`s capability to report comprehensively on patient safety and assess whether their professions or areas of practice influenced their choice to work with error reporting and not with other data sources also used in patient safety. Methods: A cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire was conducted. This was a descriptive study design with a quantitative approach. Reliability and validity of the study were assured through a pilot test and in consultation with the project leader (who was the researcher’s supervisor and an expert in epidemiology research), and experts in patient safety field at the University of Frankfurt. This study was conducted with approval from the University of Frankfurt (see annexure 1b) and University of Stellenbosch ethics committees. Ethics reference number: S15/11/267. Sixty-two experts in patient safety research were surveyed using a 15-item online questionnaire. Error reporting was measured against other data sources on its availability, accessibility, time consumption, annual report generation, ability to report on all causes and level of harm to patients, uniqueness, independence and adaptability to different health organisations. Data were analysed using Statistical Analysis Software 9.4. Results: Error reporting was the most widely used patient safety data source with 36 (58%) participants indicating a preference for using it, as opposed to 13 (21%) for chart review, 10 (16%) for claims data, 9 (15%) for routine data and 8 (13%) for survey data. Experts felt it was the best in reporting on all levels of harm (61.1%) and generating annual patient safety reports (44.4%), but it was the most inaccessible data source (37.2%). Both profession (p = 0.25) and area of practice (p = 0.79) had no influence on experts’ choice for error reporting as a data source. The difference between error reporting’s overall performance in patient safety and the other data sources, measured using a t-test was not statistically significant (between error reporting and claims data source (p = 0.92), between error reporting and routine data source (p = 0.74) and between error reporting and survey data source (p = 0.61). Conclusion: Error reporting, although the most widely used, had shortcomings in several areas currently complemented by other data sources. Thus, relying on it alone could be inadequate, and ways to integrate data sources should be explored further.