Reasons for not reporting patient safety incidents in general practice: A qualitative study

References

• Shaw C, Coles J. The reporting of adverse clinical incidents: International views and experience. London: CASPE Research; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Bjørn B, Anhøj J, Lilja B. Rapportering af utilsigtede hændelser: Fem års erfaringer med et nationalt rapporteringssystem [Reporting of patient safety incidents: experience from five years with a national reporting system]. Ugeskr Læger 2009;171:1677–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mikkelsen T, Sokolowski I, Olesen F. General practitioners’ attitudes toward reporting and learning from adverse events: Results from a survey. Scand J Prim Health Care 2006;24: 27–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikkelsen T, Rubak JM, Olesen F. Praktiserende lægers holdninger til rapportering af og læring fra utilsigtede hændelser: Erfaringer fra fokusgruppeinterview [General practitioners’ attitudes toward reporting and learning from accidents: Experiences from focus group interviews]. Ugeskr Læger 2004;166:1766–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Denis JL, Hébert Y, Langley A, Lozeau D, Trottier LH. Explaining diffusion patterns for complex health care innovations. Health Care Man Rev 2002;27:60–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kousgaard MB. Tid til kvalitetsmåling? – studier af indrulleringsprocesser i forbindelse med introduktionen af kliniske kvalitetsdatabaser i speciallægepraksissektoren [Time for quality measurement? Studies of enrolment processes related to the introduction of clinical databases for quality in the sector of practicing specialists].Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Kousgaard MB, Thorsen T. Implementeringsbarrierer – en organisationssociologisk nuancering [Implementation barriers – commentaries from organizational sociology]. Ugeskr Læger 2009;171:1688–1691.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schaper LK, Pervan GP. ICT and OTs: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int J Med Informatics 2007;76:212–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bagozzi, RP. The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Information Systems 2007;8:244–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Hellebæk T, Simonsen M, Simonsen PG. Utilsigtede hændelser – patientsikkerhed og risikostyring i almen praksis. Månedsskr Prakt Lægegern 2009;87:540–4.
   Google Scholar
• Simonsen PG. Utilsigtede hændelser – rapport fra et modelprojekt. NOLK 2008, December.
   Google Scholar
• Kvale S. InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract 1996;13:522–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt H, Miller GC, Steven ID, Howarth GC, Nicholson PA, Bhasale AL, . Collecting data on potentially harmful events: A method for monitoring incidents in general practice. Fam Pract 1997;14:101–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dovey SM, Meyers DS, Phillips RL, Green LA, Fryer GE, Galliher JM, . A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11: 233–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elder NC, Dovey SM. Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: A synthesis of the literature. J Fam Pract 2002;51:927–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makeham MA, Dovey SM, County M, Kidd MR. An international taxonomy for errors in general practice: A pilot study. Med J Aust 2002;177:68–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rubin G, George A, Chinn DJ, Richardson C. Errors in general practice: Development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors. Qual Saf Health Care;2003;12:443–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandars J, Esmail A. The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: Understanding the diversity across studies. Fam Pract 2003;20:231–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetzels R, Wolters R, Weel C, Wensing M. Mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice: A prospective observational study. BMC Fam Pract 2008;9:35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorm C, Braithwaite J, Travaglia J. Evaluation of the incident information management system in New South Wales: Study No. 1 – Literature review. Sydney: Centre for Clinical Governance Research in Health, University of New South Wales; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Travaglia JF, Westbrook MT, Braithwaite J. Implementation of a patient safety incident management system as viewed by doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. Health 2009:13:277–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent C, Stanhope N, Crowley-Murphy M. Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: An empirical study. J Eval Clin Pract 1999;5:13–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000;320:114–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 1989;13: 319–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q 2003;27:425–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. Five Misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inquiry 2006;12:219–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Checkland K, Harrison S, Marshall M. Is the metaphor of “barriers to change” useful in understanding implementation?J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:95–100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clarke AE, Fujimura JH, eds. The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1992.
   Google Scholar