From these interviews, seven topic areas for wider Delphi expert review were generated: Roles that reporting systems can achieve Roles reporting systems cannot fulfill Methods to maximize learning and feedback from reporting systems The role of national and local data collection and safety solutions Voluntary versus mandatory data collection Investigation of incidents and accountability Staff training in reporting and investigating incidents Delphi survey From 60 experts invited for the broader Delphi survey, 30 agreed to participate (50%). Of these 30, 90·0% had greater than 10 years expertise in incident reporting and 86.7% had been involved in the development of an incident reporting system. The median number of papers in the respondent group of experts was significantly greater than the non-respondent group (Median=4, Interquartile range: 3, vs. Median=3, Interquartile range 1) (p value= 0·003). There were significantly more experts from English speaking countries than not in the respondent group (100%) versus the non respondent group (86·7%) (p value = 0·038). After the first round, experts recruited reached consensus on 25 statements regarding the purpose and remit of national PSRS. All 58 statements including the consensus statements were incorporated into the second round to check for consistency of response and to increase levels of consensus. After the second round of individual feedback 26/30 (86·7%) experts responded with their revised opinions. From the 58 questions: 40 statements reached consensus and formed the expert-derived guidelines (Table 2). A further seven statements achieved
From these interviews, seven topic areas for wider Delphi expert review were generated: Roles that reporting systems can achieve Roles reporting systems cannot fulfill Methods to maximize learning and feedback from reporting systems The role of national and local data collection and safety solutions Voluntary versus mandatory data collection Investigation of incidents and accountability Staff training in reporting and investigating incidents Delphi survey From 60 experts invited for the broader Delphi survey, 30 agreed to participate (50%). Of these 30, 90·0% had greater than 10 years expertise in incident reporting and 86.7% had been involved in the development of an incident reporting system. The median number of papers in the respondent group of experts was significantly greater than the non-respondent group (Median=4, Interquartile range: 3, vs. Median=3, Interquartile range 1) (p value= 0·003). There were significantly more experts from English speaking countries than not in the respondent group (100%) versus the non respondent group (86·7%) (p value = 0·038). After the first round, experts recruited reached consensus on 25 statements regarding the purpose and remit of national PSRS. All 58 statements including the consensus statements were incorporated into the second round to check for consistency of response and to increase levels of consensus. After the second round of individual feedback 26/30 (86·7%) experts responded with their revised opinions. From the 58 questions: 40 statements reached consensus and formed the expert-derived guidelines (Table 2). A further seven statements achieved
Final_BMJ_Qual_Safe_International%20guidelines%20for%20national%20patient%20safety%20incident%20reporting%20systems-%20An%20expert%20Delphi%20review%20process_Spiral%20Upload.docx