Quality management and safety culture in medicine – Do standard quality reports provide insights into the human factor of patient safety?

000089 10.3205/000089 urn:nbn:de:0183-0000894 Research Article Quality management and safety culture in medicine – Do standard quality reports provide insights into the human factor of patient safety? Qualitätsmanagement und Sicherheitskultur in der Medizin – Findet der „Human Factor“ für Patientensicherheit Berücksichtigung in standardisierten Qualitätsberichten? Wischet Wischet Werner W

UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard Wallnöfer Zentrum 1, 6060 Hall in Tirol, AustriaUMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria

werner.wischet@umit.at author Schusterschitz Schusterschitz Claudia C

UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard Wallnöfer Zentrum 1, 6060 Hall in Tirol, Austria, Tel.: + 43 050 8648 3886, Fax: + 43 050 8648 67 3886UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 safety culture error culture error elasticity patient safety quality management quality report Sicherheitskultur Fehlerkultur Fehlerelastizität Patientensicherheit Qualitätsmanagement Qualitätsberichte 20091022 20091215 engl 1612-3174 7 GMS German Medical Science GMS Ger Med Sci 30 Mit der Publikation von „To err is human: building a safer health care system“ hat das Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1999 in den USA auf grundlegende Mängel in Zusammenhang mit Patientensicherheit aufmerksam gemacht. In der Konsequenz ist Sicherheitskultur zu einem essentiellen Teil des Qualitätsmanagements geworden. Die vorliegende Untersuchung beschreibt die Analyse von Qualitätsberichten deutscher Krankenhäuser der Maximalversorgung für das Jahr 2006 hinsichtlich des Auftretens von Indikatoren für das Vorhandensein einer Sicherheitskultur. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass relativ zur großen Aufmerksamkeit für den Bericht des IOM und damit verbunden für Sicherheitskultur, dieses Thema noch unterrepräsentiert ist in der Dokumentation von Qualität. Eine mögliche Ursache dafür könnte in der fehlenden Spezifikation von Anforderungen für einen Standard bezüglich des „Human factor“ und der Patientensicherheit liegen. In 1999 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published the landmark report “To err is human: building a safer healthcare system” highlighting critical deficiencies within the area of patient safety. As a consequence, safety culture evolved as a core component of quality management in medicine. Purpose of the investigation at hand was to find out to what extent this is reflected in standard quality reports issued by German hospitals providing maximum medical care. Reports issued for the year 2006 were analysed with respect to the appearance of indicators for the presence of a safety culture. Results suggest that despite the huge awareness for patient safety caused by the IOM report, the topic of safety culture does not get the anticipated attention within the quality reports. This may indicate that the current requirements for the quality reports do not facilitate transparency when it comes to the human factor of patient safety. Introduction With the publication of “To err is human: building a safer health care system” and an estimate of up to 98.000 death per year due to treatment errors, the Institute of Medicine in 1999 not only highlighted substantial deficiencies in patient care but also raised public awareness for the meaning of patient safety for quality in medicine . During the following years this report triggered various international projects at the World Health Organization (WHO – World Alliance on Patient Safety), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD – Health care quality indicator project), and the European Union (European Commission on public health – SImPatIE:</PlainText></TextGroup> Safety improvement for patients in Europe), with the common objective to improve patient safety. In line with a core postulation of the IOM report, safety culture is included as an integral part into the scope of these initiatives. The most recent international project, the European Network for Patient Safety (EuNETPaS), a collaboration of all 27 EU-countries also mentions “promoting a culture of patient safety” as one of 5 focus areas and puts it first on its list of priorities. Taken together, it is well recognized that safety culture is pivotal for quality in medicine and that “patient safety encompasses…the attributes of organizations that help guard against harm and enable rapid recovery when risk escalates” <TextLink reference="2"></TextLink>.</Pgraph> </TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Background"> <MainHeadline>Background</MainHeadline> <Pgraph>Generally spoken, the term “safety culture” refers to an “organizational culture focused on safety objectives”. Even though “safety culture” is a widely and frequently used term, so far no common definition of it exists <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>. “Researchers tend to use safety culture, safety climate and perhaps safety management interchangeably, as the terms are not so clear cut” <TextLink reference="4"></TextLink>. According to the “European Society for Quality in Health Care” safety culture is defined as follows: “Culture of safety: an integrated pattern of individual and organizational behavior, based upon shared beliefs and values, that continuously seeks to minimize patient harm which may result from the processes of care delivery” <TextLink reference="5"></TextLink>. In German, it is common practice to also use the word “error culture” analogue to safety culture. Taking the definition provided by the “Physicians centre for quality in medicine” as a basis, “error culture” represents a revised management of error away from a superficial reactive culture of blame towards a system oriented proactive safety culture <TextLink reference="6"></TextLink>. Along this line, the German “Advisory Council for the Concerted Action in Health Care” demands systematic and prospective error management to become an attribute for quality in medicine (new error culture) which can overcome the notion of physician's infallibility, and the tendency to search for a single guilty individual <TextLink reference="7"></TextLink>. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>Donald Berwick indicated already in 1989 that a “Theory of bad apples” is improper to address issues in quality and to support continuous improvement in health care <TextLink reference="8"></TextLink>. Instead, the phenomenon of “human error” in medicine does require a far more sophisticated view which, based on the work by J. Reason, needs to differentiate between active failures of individuals and latent conditions hidden within the organization. His concept of safety culture is based on attitudes, values, and beliefs of people supported by appropriate infrastructure to manage data and system information <TextLink reference="9"></TextLink>. Findings from investigations into real world examples like the “Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry” provide further evidence that “the culture of the future must be a culture of safety and of quality; a culture of openness and of accountability; … a culture in which collaborative teamwork is prized” <TextLink reference="10"></TextLink>. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>All together, the acceptance for applying human factor theory and system thinking to quality management in medicine has dramatically increased over the last decade, a fact that is reflected in the following statement of the Insitute of Medicine: “More commonly, errors are caused by faulty systems, processes and conditions that lead people to make mistakes or fail to prevent them” <TextLink reference="11"></TextLink> This is also in line with Schrappe, who demands the integration of safety culture into the self-image of hosp<TextGroup><PlainText>ital</PlainText></TextGroup>s <TextLink reference="12"></TextLink>.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>An organization’s safety culture can be evaluated by using specific questionnaires. In addition, the presence of incident reporting systems, specific measures like crew resource management or high reliability trainings adopted from high reliability theory and other activities in conjunction with risk or error management can be used as implicit (indirect) indicators for the existence of a culture of safety <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="14"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="15"></TextLink>. Mearns et al. are referring to indirect indicators as a source of information about safety culture and argue: “The extent to which these factors are found to be in tune with each other may determine whether or not an organization has a positive safety culture” <TextLink reference="16"></TextLink>. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>From a regulatory point of view, the German Health Care Reform 2000 already included comprehensive measures for quality assurance in hospitals. The following “Fallpauschalengesetz (DRG law)” in 2002 obligates all accredited hospitals to publish biannual quality reports (initially in 2005 for the prior year 2004) based on common standards. Objectives and metrics used in these quality reports were determined by the federal joint committee in 2004 and documented in the “Declaration according to § 137 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 1 SGB V on the basic requirements for a quality management for hospitals accredited in compliance with § 108 SGB V”. The aim of the quality reports is to provide patients, sick funds, and referring physicians with orientation regarding health services offered and their corresponding quality. Furthermore, quality reports are expected to promote compara<TextGroup><PlainText>bi</PlainText></TextGroup>lity between individual hospitals in relation to major quality dimensions <TextLink reference="17"></TextLink>. While not demanding pre specified activities for risk and error management, both are mentioned explicitly in the outline for the quality reports issued by the “Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss”.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>Given that safety culture has been identified and widely accepted as a major contributor to quality in medicine, one would expect documentation on this matter within hospital quality reports. However, as of today there is no knowledge to what extent these reports provide insights into the status quo of safety culture in Germany. The aim of the research at hand therefore is to analyze the 2006 hospital quality reports with respect to their informative value about the extent to which safety culture did find its way into routine quality management efforts. Based on that, first and of course preliminary conclusions on the awareness for the importance of safety culture as a key component of quality management in German hospitals are drawn.</Pgraph> </TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Methodology"> <MainHeadline>Methodology</MainHeadline> <Pgraph>An initial assessment of the quality reports was performed by using safety culture, error culture and error management as search items in order to gain an understanding for the prevalence of explicit mentioning of safety culture and related concepts within the quality reports. Mortality and morbidity conferences, while not named specificly in the context of safety culture, were also included in the initial assessment, acknowledging their long tradition in assessing outcomes and treatment related adverse events including potential error <TextLink reference="18"></TextLink>.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>In a second step a literature research was conducted in order to identify indicators which either allow for directly measuring safety culture (direct indicators), or which qualify as implicit measures (indirect indicators) for safety culture <TextLink reference="19"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="20"></TextLink>. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>As a result of this, the following methods for the direct assessment of safety culture were identified (e.g. <TextLink reference="20"></TextLink>):</Pgraph> <Pgraph> <UnorderedList> <ListItem level="1">ORMAG – Operating room management attitudes questionnaire</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">SAQ – Safety attitudes questionnaire</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">SLOAPS – Strategies for leadership: An organizational approach to patient safety</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">PSCHO – Patient safety cultures in healthcare organizations</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">VHA PSCQ – Veterans administration patient safety culture questionnaire</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HSOPS – Hospital survey on patient safety</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">CSS – Culture of safety survey</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">SCS – Safety climate survey</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">MSSA – Medication safety self assessment</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HTSSCS – Hospital transfusion service safety culture survey</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HSPSC – Hospital survey on patient safety culture</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">MaPSaf – Manchester patient safety framework</ListItem> </UnorderedList> </Pgraph> <Pgraph>Indirect indicators for safety culture can be divided into tools for organizational development/teamwork and more technical tools for capturing or analyzing data related to incidents. For the first category the literature search yielded to the following findings (e.g. <TextLink reference="21"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="22"></TextLink>):</Pgraph> <Pgraph> <UnorderedList> <ListItem level="1">CRM – Crew resource management</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">ACRM – Anaesthesia crisis resource management</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">TOMS – Team oriented medical simulator</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HRT – High reliability teams</ListItem> </UnorderedList> </Pgraph> <Pgraph>Technical tools to collect safety relevant data are:</Pgraph> <Pgraph> <UnorderedList> <ListItem level="1">CIRS – Critical incident reporting system <TextLink reference="23"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">ICUSRS – ICU safety reporting system <TextLink reference="24"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">CIRS medical – Reporting system AEZQ (<Hyperlink href="http://www.cirsmedical.de/">http://www.cirsmedical.de/</Hyperlink>)</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">PaSIS – Patient safety information system <TextLink reference="25"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">PaSOS – Patient safety optimization system (<Hyperlink href="https://www.pasos-ains.de/indexSSL.php">https://www.pasos-ains.de/indexSSL.php</Hyperlink>)</ListItem> <ListItem level="1">CIRS DGCH – <Hyperlink href="http://www.dgch.de/de/cirs/index.html">http://www.dgch.de/de/cirs/index.html</Hyperlink></ListItem> </UnorderedList> </Pgraph> <Pgraph>Complementary to these data management applications used for incident reporting, a number of risk and error analysis tools exist which can also serve as indirect indicators for the existence of safety culture. In the literature, the following tools are mentioned:</Pgraph> <Pgraph> <UnorderedList> <ListItem level="1">FMEA – Failure mode and efficiency analysis <TextLink reference="26"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">FTA – Fault tree analysis <TextLink reference="26"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">RCA – Root cause analysis <TextLink reference="27"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">ERA – Error and risk analysis <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HRA – Human reliability analysis <TextLink reference="29"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HAZOP – Hazard and operability study <TextLink reference="30"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">SHERPA – Systematic human error reduction and prediction approach <TextLink reference="30"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">PHA – Proactive hazard analysis <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HFMEA – Healthcare failure mode and effect analysis <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HACCP – Hazard analysis and critical control points <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink></ListItem> <ListItem level="1">HVA – Hazard vulnerability analysis (Joint commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations 2002, <Hyperlink href="http://www.jointcommission.org/">http://www.jointcommission.org/</Hyperlink>)</ListItem> </UnorderedList> </Pgraph> <Pgraph>The direct as well as the indirect indicators for safety culture served as a basis for the analysis-matrix that was compiled to evaluate the quality reports with respect to the appearance of indicators for safety culture.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>In order to identify chapters relevant for “safety culture” the standard structure of the reports was reviewed. The reports themselves are divided into 4 subsections. Whilst chapter A and B are concentrated on structural and procedural data (e.g. number and type of wards, number of beds, number of specific interventions…), chapter C (measures and projects on quality assurance in the hospital) and D (internal quality management, e.g. systematic strategies and measures to support continuous improvement) are explicitly focused on the documentation of the implementation of quality management in hospitals. Consequently only chapters C and D of the quality reports were analyzed in terms of their reference to direct and indirect indicators of safety culture. Figure 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="figure"/> summarizes the signal steps of the methodological procedure.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>To minimize any potential for selection bias due to disease specialization only quality reports of hospitals providing maximum medical care (N=96, source: IMS 2007) were considered. Since the presented data are based on an analysis of published quality reports and not on information collected specificly on safety culture in the hospitals themselves, conclusions on the current distribution of safety culture within the present paper remain preliminary and have do be interpreted with precaution.</Pgraph> </TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Results"> <MainHeadline>Results</MainHeadline> <Pgraph>Figure 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="figure"/> shows the results of the initial search within the quality reports using the key words “safety culture”, “error culture”, “error management” and “morbidity/mortality conferences”. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>As can be seen in Figure 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="figure"/>, only seven (7%) of all hospitals explicitly mentioned “safety culture” as an integral part of their quality assurance. Both other search terms, “error culture” (14 hospitals/15%) and “error management” (32 hospitals/33%), were represented more frequently. Most commonly mentioned terms were “morbidity/mortality conferences” with a frequency of 44% (42 hospitals). 31 hospitals or 32% of the sample did not refer to any of these search items. The distribution of direct and indirect indicators according to the analysis matrix is shown in Figure 3 <ImgLink imgNo="3" imgType="figure"/>. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>According to the results presented in Figure 3 <ImgLink imgNo="3" imgType="figure"/>, evaluation of safety culture as a direct measure based on specific questionnaires was not mentioned in any of the quality reports. Among the indirect indicators incident reporting systems turned out as the most prominent tool and were listed in 47 hospitals or 49% of the quality management reports as part of the quality assurance efforts. Only two hospitals (2%) are naming specific risk management tools in their reports. None of the investigated quality reports did refer to teamtraining activities identified as indirect indicators for safety culture. More than half of the reviewed reports (49 or 51%) did not make reference to any of the listed indicators for safety culture.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>Matching the mentioning of CIRS against the explicit reference to safety culture within the quality reports lead to the following result: Amongst hospitals which use rep<TextGroup><PlainText>ortin</PlainText></TextGroup>g systems a significant proportion (66%) did not explicitly adress “safety culture” or “error culture” in their quality report (Figure 4 <ImgLink imgNo="4" imgType="figure"/>).</Pgraph> </TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Discussion"> <MainHeadline>Discussion</MainHeadline> <Pgraph>Along with the DRG legislation 2002 went the decision to introduce standardized quality reports for German Hospitals. With respect to structural data and simple quantifiable parameters, such as an outline of the overall organization, number of beds, number of patients, frequency of specific interventions, the documentation instructions issued by the “Federal joint committee” in 2004 are characterized by a high degree of clarity and specifity. Contrary to this, the requirements for the quality management relevant chapters C (quality assurance) and in particular D (quality management) are less explicit in terms of information mandatory to be included. As a consequence, the content of these chapters, in particular chapter D, comprises much more of individual initiatives by hospitals than of documentation standards which would allow for benchmarking implemented measures with prespecified reference values. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>Our analysis revealed an incidence of 7% for the term “safety culture”, or a total incidence of 20% when cons<TextGroup><PlainText>iderin</PlainText></TextGroup>g the synonym “error culture” within the quality reports of the investigated sample. Compared to the combined frequency of occurrence of 20% for the search terms safety/error culture, the appearance of the more general term “error management” was higher with 33% indicating an overall awareness for the need to adress error in at least one third of the hospitals. Most frequently the latter term was mentioned in association with incident reporting systems and/or the use of mortality and morbidity conferences. None of the other indirect indicators for safety culture turned out to play a significant role in this sample. From the authors' point of view, this finding may imply that the information value of the reports with respect to the issue of safety culture is not sufficient. At the same time, it seems plausible to conclude that the basic requirements from the IOM report did not evoque an unsolicited or sustainable response in the sense of documented activities related to safety culture for the majority of investigated hospitals.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>One could argue that the frequent mentioning of incident reporting proofs the latter hypothesis wrong, in particular since available evidence on the use of critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) suggests that “high reporting rates may be indicators of a positive safety culture” <TextLink reference="32"></TextLink>. However, even in the category of hospitals mentioning CIRS or any other reporting system 31 out of 47 (66%) neither refer to safety culture nor to error culture in their quality reports. As a consequence, it remains unclear whether or not the introduction of CIRS was accompanied by an awareness for the meaning of safety culture or not. This is of special importance since available evidence indicates that incident reporting systems tend to remain ineffective when implemented as an isolated measure <TextLink reference="33"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="7"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="34"></TextLink>. Along the same line Barach et al. state that “management attitudes and institutional climate can greatly influence the success or failure of reporting efforts” <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink>. Aside from the predominantely missing reference to safety culture, any referral to compliance with the incident reporting systems or information on the frequency of incidents being documented was lacking. Without that information, there is no reliable foundation for using the acceptance of documenting incidents as a sign for safety culture or for benchmarking the implementation across different hospitals based on the quality reports. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>The frequent mentioning of morbidity and mortality conferences as a more traditional approach for assessing performance and outcomes can also not reduce the impression of a limited awareness for the concept of safety culture. While these conferences can be seen as an ambition to investigate causes of error, it needs to be taken into consideration that they do suffer from some potential limitations. In particular, a narrow focus on individual performance rather than system thinking as well as hindsight bias and search for error instead of focusing on error promoting conditions are to be mentioned as weaknesses of that tool <TextLink reference="36"></TextLink>. Further constraints are caused by the high variance in the understanding of how to adequately perform morbidity and mortality conferences. This fact is stressed by Aboumatar et al. according to whom “there is wide variation in how morbidity and mortality conferences are conducted across departments and little conformity to known models for analyzing medical incidents” <TextLink reference="37"></TextLink>. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>A possible explanation for the poor consideration of safety culture and its direct and indirect indicators within quality reports may be that the prevailing understanding of quality is still based on a perception of error as an event happening at the sharp end, while latent or system-based issues remain in the background. This interpretation is supported by the fact that none of the investigated hospitals reported specific measures on teamtraining within the context of safety and risk management. Similarly, any mentioning of questionnaires for a systematic evaluation of safety culture is missing. Another potential explanation for this observation might be a preference to focus on quantifiable measures. Opportunities for improvement above and beyond the focus on numerical metrics was already expressed in a study bei Geraedts et al. who were looking at patient and physician opinion of the reported quality indicators <TextLink reference="38"></TextLink>. In line with that, Reason highlights that “the corollary in healthcare institutions is a singular focus on critical numerical indices. Hospital managers live by numbers but they do not always appreciate their limitations” <TextLink reference="34"></TextLink>. Culture as a soft factor for performance is less tangible and carries an element of uncertainty which people may want to escape through hiding themselves behind numerical metrics.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>All in all, the findings from the analysis at hand are comparable to the results of the “Krankenhausbarometer 2008” . According to that survey, about 31% of all hosp<TextGroup><PlainText>ital</PlainText></TextGroup>s in Germany do use at least to some extent some sort of risk management systems. That number fits well with the identified 33% of hospitals referring to error management in their quality reports in the present study. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>However, the “Krankenhausbarometer” does not mention “safety culture” at all. Apart from that, according to the “Krankenhausbarometer 2008”, the most frequently reported tool mentioned within the context of risk management was complaints management (90.9% of all hospitals with risk management) <TextLink reference="39"></TextLink>. This high reliance on complaints management is thought-provoking, since previous research suggests that the reliability of patient information on medical error is rather limited, an issue which is raised by Tanne with reference to study findings: “More than half the incidents reported by patients were problems with the service rather than medical error” <TextLink reference="40"></TextLink>. In light of this, complaints management rather qualifies as an indicator for efforts regarding patient satisfaction than efforts for patient safety.</Pgraph> <Pgraph>The preceding analysis leads us to the notion that despite all efforts, the matter of safety culture has not reached a level of awareness which automatically would translate into explicit reference and/or corresponding strategies/tactics in standard quality reports in Germany. In view of the high relevance of the human factor for safety in health care, it seems to be critically important to substantially improve the content of the quality reports through specifying requirements on risk and error management and in particular to offer a framework for establishing safety culture. A concrete example for that is provided by “The Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)” in the US, who integrated an annual assessment of safety culture in 2007 in their objectives on patient safety. Further guidance could also be taken from the NHS in the UK based on the work of the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA). Building a safety culture is the first step in their program “Seven steps to patient safety” and corresponding tools for implementation are available online (<Hyperlink href="http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/collections/seven-steps-to-patient-safety/?entryid45=59787">http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/collections/seven-steps-to-patient-safety/?entryid45=59787</Hyperlink>). </Pgraph> <Pgraph>In line with the final report from the SymPaTIE project the authors of the present paper conclude that it can be considerd indisputable that “Patient safety management is a clear distinguishable, but inseperable part of our quality management system, that should be part of our normal management and leadership system, both professional and managerial” <TextLink reference="41"></TextLink>. This in mind only the combination of technical skills with an appropriate safety culture acknowledging human failability and favouring patient safety will translate into error elasticity <TextLink reference="42"></TextLink> as a concept for preventing harm to patients. </Pgraph> <Pgraph>In light of this, a revision of the current requirements for the quality reports issued by German hospitals might be worth to be considered. As stated by the Institute of Medicine: “Setting and enforcing explicit standards for safety through regulatory and related mechanisms, such as licensing, certification, and accreditation, can define minimum performance levels for health care organizations and professionals” <TextLink reference="10"></TextLink>.</Pgraph> </TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Notes"> <MainHeadline>Notes</MainHeadline> <SubHeadline>Conflicts of interest</SubHeadline> <Pgraph>None declared.</Pgraph> </TextBlock> <References linked="yes"> <Reference refNo="1"> <RefAuthor>Kohn LT</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Corrigan J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Donaldson MS; Institute of Medicine (US)</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Committee on Quality of Health Care in America</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>1999</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>To err is human: Building a safer health care system</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS; Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To err is human: Building a safer health care system. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1999.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="2"> <RefAuthor>McLoughlin V</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Millar J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mattke S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Franca M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jonsson PM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Somekh D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bates D</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Selecting indicators for patient safety at the health system level in OECD countries</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Int J Qual Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>14-20</RefPage> <RefTotal>McLoughlin V, Millar J, Mattke S, Franca M, Jonsson PM, Somekh D, Bates D. Selecting indicators for patient safety at the health system level in OECD countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18(Suppl 1):14-20. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl030</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzl030</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="3"> <RefAuthor>Hofinger G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Sicherheitskultur im Krankenhaus: Vortrag auf dem Rahmenkongress Medizintechnik und Patientensicherheit MEK, Münster, März 2008</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Hofinger G. Sicherheitskultur im Krankenhaus: Vortrag auf dem Rahmenkongress Medizintechnik und Patientensicherheit MEK, Münster, März 2008. Münster; 2008. Available from: http://www.gesine-hofinger.de/downloads/mek2008sicherheitskulturimkrankenhaushofinger.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.gesine-hofinger.de/downloads/mek2008sicherheitskulturimkrankenhaushofinger.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="4"> <RefAuthor>Choudhry RM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fang D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mohamed S</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The nature of safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Safety Sci</RefJournal> <RefPage>993-1012</RefPage> <RefTotal>Choudhry RM, Fang D, Mohamed S. The nature of safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Safety Sci. 2007;45(10):993-1012. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.003</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.003</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="5"> <RefAuthor>van Everdingen JJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Smorenburg SM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schellekens W</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cucic S; SimPaTIE Project</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Patient safety toolbox: instruments for improving safety in health care organisations</RefBookTitle> <RefPage>19</RefPage> <RefTotal>van Everdingen JJ, Smorenburg SM, Schellekens W, Cucic S; SimPaTIE Project. Patient safety toolbox: instruments for improving safety in health care organisations. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; [2006]. p. 19. Available from: http://www.simpatie.org/Main/files/fsf1175778411/S.WP6.final.original.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.simpatie.org/Main/files/fsf1175778411/S.WP6.final.original.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="6"> <RefAuthor>Thomeczek C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bock W</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Conen D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ekkernkamp A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Everz D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fischer G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gerlach F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gibis B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gramsch E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jonitz G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Klakow-Frank R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Oesingmann U</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schirmer HD</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Smentkowski U</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ziegler M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ollenschläger G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Das Glossar Patientensicherheit – ein Beitrag zur Definitionsbestimmung und zum Verständnis der Thematik "Patientensicherheit" und "Fehler in der Medizin" [Glossary on patient safety – a contribution to on-target-definition and to appreciate the subjects of "patient safety"]</RefTitle> <RefYear>2004</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gesundheitswesen</RefJournal> <RefPage>833-840</RefPage> <RefTotal>Thomeczek C, Bock W, Conen D, Ekkernkamp A, Everz D, Fischer G, Gerlach F, Gibis B, Gramsch E, Jonitz G, Klakow-Frank R, Oesingmann U, Schirmer HD, Smentkowski U, Ziegler M, Ollenschläger G. Das Glossar Patientensicherheit – ein Beitrag zur Definitionsbestimmung und zum Verständnis der Thematik "Patientensicherheit" und "Fehler in der Medizin" [Glossary on patient safety – a contribution to on-target-definition and to appreciate the subjects of "patient safety"]. Gesundheitswesen. 2004;66(12):833-840. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813849</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-813849</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="7"> <RefAuthor>Sachverständigenrat für die Konzertierte Aktion im Gesundheitswesen</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Gutachten 2003: Fianzierung, Nutzerorientierung und Qualität; Pressekonferenz am 24. Februar 2003</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Sachverständigenrat für die Konzertierte Aktion im Gesundheitswesen. Gutachten 2003: Fianzierung, Nutzerorientierung und Qualität; Pressekonferenz am 24. Februar 2003. 2003. Available from: http://www.svr-gesundheit.de/Informationen/pm03.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.svr-gesundheit.de/Informationen/pm03.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="8"> <RefAuthor>Berwick DM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Continuous Improvement as an ideal in health care</RefTitle> <RefYear>1989</RefYear> <RefJournal>N Engl J Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>53-6</RefPage> <RefTotal>Berwick DM. Continuous Improvement as an ideal in health care. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(1):53-6.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="9"> <RefAuthor>Reason JT</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>1997</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Reason JT. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Surrey: Ashgate Pub Lim; 1997.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="10"> <RefAuthor>Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2001</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry: final report; summary</RefBookTitle> <RefPage>13</RefPage> <RefTotal>Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry . Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry: final report; summary. 2001. p. 13. Available from: http://www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/final_report/Summary.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/final_report/Summary.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="11"> <RefAuthor>Kohn</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>LT</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Corrigan JM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Donaldson MS; Institute of Medicine (US)</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Committee on Quality of Health Care in America</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>To err is human: building a safer health system. Executive summary</RefBookTitle> <RefPage>10</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kohn, LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS; Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To err is human: building a safer health system. Executive summary. Washington: National Academy Press; 2000. p. 10.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="12"> <RefAuthor>Schrappe M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Patientensicherheit und Risikomanagement</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Med Klin</RefJournal> <RefPage>478-85</RefPage> <RefTotal>Schrappe M. Patientensicherheit und Risikomanagement. Med Klin. 2005;100(8):478-85. DOI: 10.1007/s00063-005-1061</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00063-005-1061</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="13"> <RefAuthor>Pronovost PJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Miller MR</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wachter RM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Tracking Progress in Patient Safety: an Elusive Target</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>JAMA</RefJournal> <RefPage>696-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Pronovost PJ, Miller MR, Wachter RM. Tracking Progress in Patient Safety: an Elusive Target. JAMA. 2006;296(6): 696-9. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.6.696</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.6.696</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="14"> <RefAuthor>Sorra JS</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nieva VF</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2004</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Sorra JS, Nieva VF. Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2004. (AHRQ Publication; No. 04-0041). Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/patientsafetyculture/hospapps.htm</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/patientsafetyculture/hospapps.htm</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="15"> <RefAuthor>World Alliance for Patient Safety</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>WHO Draft Guidelines for Adverse Event Reporting and Learning Systems: From information to action</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>World Alliance for Patient Safety. WHO Draft Guidelines for Adverse Event Reporting and Learning Systems: From information to action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/events/05/Reporting_Guidelines.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.who.int/patientsafety/events/05/Reporting_Guidelines.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="16"> <RefAuthor>Mearns KJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Flin R</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Assessing the state of organizational safety – culture or climate?</RefTitle> <RefYear>1999</RefYear> <RefJournal>Curr Psychol Dev Learn Pers Soc</RefJournal> <RefPage>5-17</RefPage> <RefTotal>Mearns KJ, Flin R. Assessing the state of organizational safety – culture or climate? Curr Psychol Dev Learn Pers Soc. 1999;18(1):5-17.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="17"> <RefAuthor>Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Vereinbarung des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses gemäß § 137 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 6 SGB V über Inhalt und Umfang eines strukturierten Qualitätsberichts für nach § 108 SGB V zugelassene Krankenhäuser (Vereinbarung zum Qualitätsbericht der Krankenhäuser) vom 17. Oktober 2006</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Vereinbarung des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses gemäß § 137 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 6 SGB V über Inhalt und Umfang eines strukturierten Qualitätsberichts für nach § 108 SGB V zugelassene Krankenhäuser (Vereinbarung zum Qualitätsbericht der Krankenhäuser) vom 17. Oktober 2006. 2006. Available from: http://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-293/Vb-Qualitaetsbericht_2008-12-18.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-293/Vb-Qualitaetsbericht_2008-12-18.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="18"> <RefAuthor>Thomeczek C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ollenschläger G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Fehlermeldesysteme – aus jedem Fehler auch ein Nutzen? Rechtsmedizin.</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefTotal>Thomeczek C, Ollenschläger G. Fehlermeldesysteme – aus jedem Fehler auch ein Nutzen? Rechtsmedizin. 2006;16(6):355-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00194-006-0413-z</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00194-006-0413-z</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="19"> <RefAuthor>Burns C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mearns K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>McGeorge P</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Explicit and Implicit Trust Within Safety Culture</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Risk Anal</RefJournal> <RefPage>1139-50</RefPage> <RefTotal>Burns C, Mearns K, McGeorge P. Explicit and Implicit Trust Within Safety Culture. Risk Anal. 2006;26(5):1139-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00821.x</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00821.x</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="20"> <RefAuthor>Colla JB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bracken AC</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kinney LM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Weeks WB</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Measuring patient safety climate: a review of surveys</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Qual Saf Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>364-6</RefPage> <RefTotal>Colla JB, Bracken AC, Kinney LM, Weeks WB. Measuring patient safety climate: a review of surveys. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(5):364-6. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2005.014217</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.014217</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="21"> <RefAuthor>Musson DM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Helmreich RL</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Team training and resource management in health care: current issues and future directions</RefTitle> <RefYear>2004</RefYear> <RefJournal>Harv Health Policy Rev</RefJournal> <RefPage>25-35</RefPage> <RefTotal>Musson DM, Helmreich RL. Team training and resource management in health care: current issues and future directions. Harv Health Policy Rev. 2004;5(1):25-35.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="22"> <RefAuthor>Wilson KA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Burke CS</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Priest HA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Salas E</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Promoting health care safety through training high reliability teams</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Qual Saf Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>303-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Wilson KA, Burke CS, Priest HA, Salas E. Promoting health care safety through training high reliability teams. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(4):303-9. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2004.010090</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.010090</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="23"> <RefAuthor>Ahluwalia J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Marriott L</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Critical incident reporting systems</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Semin Fetal Neonatal Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>31-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Ahluwalia J, Marriott L. Critical incident reporting systems. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;10(1):31-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.siny.2004.09.012</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2004.09.012</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="24"> <RefAuthor>Pronovost P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Thompson DA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Holzmueller CG</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lubomski LH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dorman T</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dickman F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fahey M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Steinwachs DM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Engineer L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Sexton JB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wu AW</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Morlock LL</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Toward learning from patient safety reporting systems</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Crit Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>305-15</RefPage> <RefTotal>Pronovost P, Thompson DA, Holzmueller CG, Lubomski LH, Dorman T, Dickman F, Fahey M, Steinwachs DM, Engineer L, Sexton JB, Wu AW, Morlock LL. Toward learning from patient safety reporting systems. J Crit Care. 2006;21(4):305-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2006.07.001</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2006.07.001</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="25"> <RefAuthor>Rall M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Martin J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Geldner G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schleppers A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gabriel H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dieckmann P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Krier C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Volk T</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schreiner-Hecheltjen J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Möllemann A</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Charakteristika effektiver Incident-Reporting-Systeme zur Erhöhung der Patientensicherheit</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Anaesthesiol Intensivmed</RefJournal> <RefPage>S9-19</RefPage> <RefTotal>Rall M, Martin J, Geldner G, Schleppers A, Gabriel H, Dieckmann P, Krier C, Volk T, Schreiner-Hecheltjen J, Möllemann A. Charakteristika effektiver Incident-Reporting-Systeme zur Erhöhung der Patientensicherheit. Anaesthesiol Intensivmed. 2006;47(2 Suppl):S9-19. Available from: http://www.d-i-p-s.de/pasis/downloads/IRS_a_und_i_Rall_2006.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.d-i-p-s.de/pasis/downloads/IRS_a_und_i_Rall_2006.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="26"> <RefAuthor>Bundesärztekammer</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Curriculum Ärztliches Qualitätsmanagement</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Bundesärztekammer. Curriculum Ärztliches Qualitätsmanagement. 4. Aufl. Berlin: Bundesärztekammer; 2007. Available from: http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/CurrAerztlQM3.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/CurrAerztlQM3.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="27"> <RefAuthor>Wallace LM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>From root causes to safer systems: international comparisons of nationally sponsored healthcare staff training programmes</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Qual Saf Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>388-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Wallace LM. From root causes to safer systems: international comparisons of nationally sponsored healthcare staff training programmes. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(6):388-9. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2006.020800</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.020800</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="28"> <RefAuthor>Bezzola P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hochreutener MA</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Systemische Fehleranalyse ist Teil der Risikostrategie</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Schweiz Arzteztg</RefJournal> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Bezzola P, Hochreutener MA. Systemische Fehleranalyse ist Teil der Risikostrategie. Schweiz Arzteztg. 2008;15:617-9. Available from: http://www.saez.ch/pdf_d/2008/2008-15/2008-15-302.PDF</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.saez.ch/pdf_d/2008/2008-15/2008-15-302.PDF</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="29"> <RefAuthor>Lyons M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Adams S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Woloshynowych M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Vincent C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Human reliability analysis in health-care: a review of techniques</RefTitle> <RefYear>2004</RefYear> <RefJournal>Int J Risk Saf Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>223-37</RefPage> <RefTotal>Lyons M, Adams S, Woloshynowych M, Vincent C. Human reliability analysis in health-care: a review of techniques. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2004;16(4):223-37.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="30"> <RefAuthor>Welch S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jensen K</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The concept of reliability in Emergency Medicine</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Med Qual</RefJournal> <RefPage>50-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Welch S, Jensen K. The concept of reliability in Emergency Medicine. Am J Med Qual. 2007;22(1):50-8. DOI: 10.1177/1062860606296385</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1062860606296385</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="31"> <RefAuthor>McDonough JE</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2002</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Proactive hazard analysis and health care policy</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>McDonough JE. Proactive hazard analysis and health care policy. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund; 2002. Available from: http://www.milbank.org/reports/Proactive/020925Proactive.html</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.milbank.org/reports/Proactive/020925Proactive.html</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="32"> <RefAuthor>Hutchinson A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Young TA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cooper KL</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>McIntosh A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Karnon JD</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Scobie S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Thomson RG</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Trends in healthcare incident reporting and relationship to safety and quality data in acute hospitals: results from the National Reporting and Learning System</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Qual Saf Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>5-10</RefPage> <RefTotal>Hutchinson A, Young TA, Cooper KL, McIntosh A, Karnon JD, Scobie S, Thomson RG. Trends in healthcare incident reporting and relationship to safety and quality data in acute hospitals: results from the National Reporting and Learning System. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18(1):5-10. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2007.022400</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2007.022400</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="33"> <RefAuthor>Shojana KG</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The frustrating case of incident-reporting systems</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Qual Saf Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>400-2</RefPage> <RefTotal>Shojana KG. The frustrating case of incident-reporting systems. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(6):400-2. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2008.029496</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2008.029496</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="34"> <RefAuthor>Reason J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Carthey J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>de Leval MR</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Diagnosing "vulnerable system syndrome": an essential prerequisite to effective risk management</RefTitle> <RefYear>2001</RefYear> <RefJournal>Qual Saf Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>ii21-5</RefPage> <RefTotal>Reason J, Carthey J, de Leval MR. Diagnosing "vulnerable system syndrome": an essential prerequisite to effective risk management. Qual Saf Health Care. 2001;10(Suppl 2):ii21-5.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="35"> <RefAuthor>Barach P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Small SD</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>BMJ</RefJournal> <RefPage>759-63</RefPage> <RefTotal>Barach P, Small SD. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):759-63. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.759</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="36"> <RefAuthor>Kaplan H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Barach P</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Incident reporting: science or protoscience? Ten years later</RefTitle> <RefYear>2002</RefYear> <RefJournal>Qual Saf Health Care</RefJournal> <RefPage>144-5</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kaplan H, Barach P. Incident reporting: science or protoscience? Ten years later. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(2):144-5. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.11.2.144</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.2.144</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="37"> <RefAuthor>Aboumatar HJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Blackledge CG Jr</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dickson C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Heitmiller E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Freischlag J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pronovost PJ</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A descriptive study of morbidity and mortality conferences and their conformity to medical incident analysis models: results of the morbidity and mortality conference improvement study, phase 1</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Med Qual</RefJournal> <RefPage>232-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Aboumatar HJ, Blackledge CG Jr, Dickson C, Heitmiller E, Freischlag J, Pronovost PJ. A descriptive study of morbidity and mortality conferences and their conformity to medical incident analysis models: results of the morbidity and mortality conference improvement study, phase 1. Am J Med Qual. 2007;22(4):232-8. DOI: 10.1177/1062860607303292</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1062860607303292</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="38"> <RefAuthor>Geraedts M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schwartze D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Molzahn T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Hospital quality reports in Germany: patient and physician opinion of the reported quality indicators</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>BMC Health Services Res</RefJournal> <RefPage>157</RefPage> <RefTotal>Geraedts M, Schwartze D, Molzahn T. Hospital quality reports in Germany: patient and physician opinion of the reported quality indicators. BMC Health Services Res. 2007;7:157. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-157</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-157</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="39"> <RefAuthor>Blum D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Offermanns M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Perner P</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Krankenhaus Barometer: Umfrage 2008</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Blum D, Offermanns M, Perner P. Krankenhaus Barometer: Umfrage 2008. Düsseldorf: Deutsches Krankenhausinstitut e.V.; 2008. Available from: http://www.dki.de/PDF/Bericht%20KH%20Barometer%202008.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.dki.de/PDF/Bericht%20KH%20Barometer%202008.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="40"> <RefAuthor>Tanne JH</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Patients aren't accurate at detecting medical errors</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>BMJ</RefJournal> <RefPage>970-1</RefPage> <RefTotal>Tanne JH. Patients aren't accurate at detecting medical errors. BMJ. 2007;334(7601):970-1. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39206.415208.DB</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39206.415208.DB</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="41"> <RefAuthor>SimPaTIE Project</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Final report: Safety improvement for patients in Europe; reporting period Feb 2005–Feb 2007</RefBookTitle> <RefPage>6</RefPage> <RefTotal>SimPaTIE Project. Final report: Safety improvement for patients in Europe; reporting period Feb 2005–Feb 2007. Utrecht: Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO; 2007. p. 6.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="42"> <RefAuthor>Wischet W</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Eitzinger C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Qualitätsmanagement und Sicherheitskultur in der Medizin: Kontext und Konzepte</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes</RefJournal> <RefPage>530-5</RefPage> <RefTotal>Wischet W, Eitzinger C. Qualitätsmanagement und Sicherheitskultur in der Medizin: Kontext und Konzepte. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103(8):530-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.07.005</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2009.07.005</RefLink> </Reference> </References> <Media> <Tables> <NoOfTables>0</NoOfTables> </Tables> <Figures> <Figure format="png" height="754" width="764"> <MediaNo>1</MediaNo> <MediaID>1</MediaID> <Caption> <Pgraph> <Mark1>Figure 1: Sequence of steps performed to assess the quality reports with respect to the appearance of indicators for safety culture</Mark1> </Pgraph> </Caption> </Figure> <Figure format="png" height="423" width="748"> <MediaNo>2</MediaNo> <MediaID>2</MediaID> <Caption> <Pgraph> <Mark1>Figure 2: Frequency of occurence for any of the key words within the sample (multiple occurrence per institution possible)</Mark1> </Pgraph> </Caption> </Figure> <Figure format="png" height="423" width="748"> <MediaNo>3</MediaNo> <MediaID>3</MediaID> <Caption> <Pgraph> <Mark1>Figure 3: Number of hospitals naming individual indicators for safety culture (total exceeds 96 since risk management tools were documented in hospitals with incident reporting)</Mark1> </Pgraph> </Caption> </Figure> <Figure format="png" height="423" width="748"> <MediaNo>4</MediaNo> <MediaID>4</MediaID> <Caption> <Pgraph> <Mark1>Figure 4: Frequency of safety/error culture mentioned in hospitals with incident reporting systems</Mark1> </Pgraph> </Caption> </Figure> <NoOfPictures>4</NoOfPictures> </Figures> <InlineFigures> <NoOfPictures>0</NoOfPictures> </InlineFigures> <Attachments> <NoOfAttachments>0</NoOfAttachments> </Attachments> </Media> </OrigData> </GmsArticle>