Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale: a measure of doctor and nurse attitudes to adverse event reporting
- 1Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
- 2Institute of Health Sciences and Public Health Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- 3Department of Psychology, School of Health and Human Sciences, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK
- Dr B Wilson, Research Associate, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; barbara.wilson{at}christie-tr.nwest.nhs.uk
- Accepted 5 August 2007
Abstract
Objective: To develop a validated measure of professionals’ attitudes towards clinical adverse event reporting (CAER).
Design: Cross-sectional survey with follow-up.
Participants: 201 doctors and nurse/nurse-midwives undergoing postqualification training in Leeds, York and Hull Universities in 2003.
Materials: A questionnaire which comprised 73 items extracted from interviews with professionals; a second, statistically reduced version of this questionnaire.
Results: The analysis supported a 25-item questionnaire comprising five factors: blame as a consequence of reporting (six items); criteria for reporting (six items); colleagues’ expectations (six items); perceived benefits of reporting events (five items); and clarity of reporting procedures (two items). The resulting questionnaire, the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Effects Scale (RoCAES), had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.83) and external reliability (Spearman’s correlation = 0.65). The construct validity hypothesis—doctors have less positive attitudes towards CAER than nurses—was supported (t = 5.495; p<0.0001).
Conclusion: Initial development of an evidence-based, psychometrically rigorous measure of attitudes towards CAER has been reported. Following additional testing, RoCAES may be used to systematically elicit professionals’ views about, and inform interventions to improve, reporting behaviour.
Footnotes
-
Funding: Department of Health Sciences, University of York PhD Scholarship. The author’s work is independent of the funding source.
-
Competing interests: None.
-
Ethics approval: Approval was obtained from module tutors to contact students in their classes. Local ethics committee approval was not required, as the study was undertaken in August/September 2003 with a student sample.
-
Contributors: BW (Guarantor); HLB; FF—each fulfils the criteria of authorship as laid out in the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to medical journals. No other person or persons fulfil this requirement.
