Background Patients have been shown to report accurate observations of medical errors and adverse events. Various methods of introducing patient reporting into patient safety systems have been published with little consensus among researchers on the most effective method. Terminology for use in patient safety reporting has yet to be standardised. Methods Two databases, PubMed and MEDLINE, were searched for literature on patient reporting of medical errors and adverse events. Comparisons were performed to identify the optimal method for eliciting patient initiated events. Results Seventeen journal publications were reviewed by patient population, type of healthcare setting, contact method, reporting method, duration, terminology and reported response rate. Conclusion Few patient reporting studies have been published, and those identified in this review covered a wide range of methods in diverse settings. Definitive comparisons and conclusions are not possible. Patient reporting has been shown to be reliable. Higher incident rates were observed when open-ended questions were used and when respondents were asked about personal experiences in hospital and primary care. Future patient reporting systems will need a balance of closed-ended questions for cause analysis and classification, and openended narratives to allow for patient's limited understanding of terminology. Establishing the method of reporting that is most efficient in collecting reliable reports and standardising terminology for patient use should be the focus of future research.

No abstract

Technology design is a complex task, and acceptability is enhanced when usability is central to its design. Evaluating usability is a challenge for purchasers and developers of technology. We have developed a framework for testing the usability of clinical monitoring technology through literature review and experience designing clinical monitors. The framework can help designers meet key international usability norms. The framework includes these direct testing methods: thinking aloud, question asking, co-discovery, performance and psychophysiological measurement. Indirect testing methods include: questionnaires and interviews, observation and ethnographic studies, and self-reporting logs. Inspection, a third usability testing method, is also included. The use of these methods is described and practical examples of how they would be used in the development of an innovative monitor are given throughout. This framework is built on a range of methods to ensure harmony between users and new clinical monitoring technology, and have been selected to be practical to use.