Objectives: To assess awareness and use of the current incident reporting system and to identify factors inhibiting reporting of incidents in hospitals. Design, setting and participants: Anonymous survey of 186 doctors and 587 nurses from diverse clinical settings in six South Australian hospitals (response rate = 70.7% and 73.6%, respectively). Main outcome measures: Knowledge and use of the current reporting system; barriers to incident reporting. Results: Most doctors and nurses (98.3%) were aware that their hospital had an incident reporting system. Nurses were more likely than doctors to know how to access a report (88.3% v 43.0%; relative risk (RR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.63), to have ever completed a report (89.2% v 64.4%; RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61), and to know what to do with the completed report (81.9% v 49.7%; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13). Staff were more likely to report incidents which are habitually reported, often witnessed, and usually associated with immediate outcomes such as patient falls and medication errors requiring corrective treatment. Near misses and incidents which occur over time such as pressure ulcers and DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis were least likely to be reported. The most frequently stated barrier to reporting for doctors and nurses was lack of feedback (57.7% and 61.8% agreeing, respectively). Conclusions: Both doctors and nurses believe they should report most incidents, but nurses do so more frequently than doctors. To improve incident reporting, especially among doctors, clarification is needed of which incidents should be reported, the process needs to be simplified, and feedback given to reporters.I t is a decade since Leape 1 highlighted the need to gather information and redesign hospital systems to minimise errors in health care. Since then, many strategies and tools have been developed to identify and reduce errors. 2 More than 90% of consumers believe that healthcare workers should report errors, 3 and peak quality and safety organisations 4-6 recommend incident reporting to better understand errors and their contributing factors.Incidents occurring infrequently, or those not easily coded through limitations in the existing classification system, 7 can miss detection through medical record review. Incident reporting captures more contextual information about incidents 8 and, when actively promoted within the clinical setting, it can detect more preventable adverse events than medical record review 9 at a fraction of the cost. 10 Near misses are rarely documented in medical records, 11 yet occur more frequently than adverse events 12 and provide valuable lessons in recovery mechanisms without the detrimental consequences of an adverse event. 5 6 The subjective data provided by incident reporting enable hypothesis building and preventative strategies to be developed and tested.Despite its strengths, many incidents are not reported probably for the same reasons they are omitted from medical records; they are simply not recognised, and those that are detected afte...

Background: Sleep hypoventilation has been proposed as a cause of progressive hypercapnic respiratory failure and death in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A study was undertaken to determine the effects of nocturnal non-invasive bi-level pressure support ventilation (NIV) on survival, lung function and quality of life in patients with severe hypercapnic COPD. Method: A multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of NIV plus long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) versus LTOT alone was performed in four Australian University Hospital sleep/respiratory medicine departments in patients with severe stable smoking-related COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1.0 ) ,1.5 litres or ,50% predicted and ratio of FEV 1.0 to forced vital capacity (FVC) ,60% with awake arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO 2 ) .46 mm Hg and on LTOT for at least 3 months) and age ,80 years. Patients with sleep apnoea (apnoea-hypopnoea index .20/h) or morbid obesity (body mass index .40) were excluded. Outcome measures were survival, spirometry, arterial blood gases, polysomnography, general and disease-specific quality of life and mood. Results: 144 patients were randomised (72 to NIV + LTOT and 72 to LTOT alone). NIV improved sleep quality and sleep-related hypercapnia acutely, and patients complied well with therapy (mean (SD) nightly use 4.5 (3.2) h). Compared with LTOT alone, NIV (mean follow-up 2.21 years, range 0.01-5.59) showed an improvement in survival with the adjusted but not the unadjusted Cox model (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99, p = 0.045; unadjusted HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.25, p = NS). FEV

A paucity of studies exists that explore the supportive care needs of parents of a child with a rare disease. The SCNF only partially reflects the breadth and type of needs of these parents, and a preliminary revised framework has been suggested. Further research is required in this area, particularly empirical research to amend or confirm the suggested new framework.

This trial examined the optimal setting for follow-up of patients after treatment for colon cancer by either general practitioners or surgeons. In all, 203 consenting patients who had undergone potentially curative treatment for colon cancer were randomised to follow-up by general practitioners or surgeons. Follow-up guidance recommended three monthly clinical review and annual faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) and were identical in both study arms. Primary outcome measures (measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months were (1) quality of life, SF-12; physical and mental component scores, (2) anxiety and depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (3) patient satisfaction: Patient Visit-Specific Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) were: investigations, number and timing of recurrences and deaths. In all, 170 patients were available for follow-up at 12 months and 157 at 24 months. At 12 and 24 months there were no differences in scores for quality of life (physical component score, P=0.88 at 12 months; P=0.28 at 24 months: mental component score, P=0.51, P=0.47; adjusted), anxiety (P=0.72; P=0.11) depression (P=0.28; P=0.80) or patient satisfaction (P=0.06, 24 months). General practitioners ordered more FOBTs than surgeons (rate ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.4–4.4), whereas more colonoscopies (rate ratio 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–1.0), and ultrasounds (rate ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3–1.0) were undertaken in the surgeon-led group. Results suggest similar recurrence, time to detection and death rates in each group. Colon cancer patients with follow-up led by surgeons or general practitioners experience similar outcomes, although patterns of investigation vary.