ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 71K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Review of the Australian Incident Monitoring System
Allan D. Spigelman and Judith Swan
  Clinical Governance, Hunter Area Health Service, and Surgical Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
 Correspondence: Professor Allan D. Spigelman, Director Clinical Governance & Cancer Services, Hunter Area Health Service, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2305, Australia.
Email: allan.spigelman@newcastle.edu.au

The present paper was presented at the Annual Scientific Congress, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Brisbane, 7 May 2003 and appeared in abstract form as follows: Spigelman AD, Swan JR. A review of the Australian Incident Monitoring System. ANZ J. Surg. 2003; 73 (Suppl.): A73.

A. D. Spigelman MD, FRACS; J. Swan BSc, Grad Dip Public Health.

Copyright 2005 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
KEYWORDS
adverse event • clinical audit • clinical incidents • clinical risk management • peer review

ABSTRACT

Background:   A survey was conducted to assess the benefits and limitations of the Australian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) as a programme to improve patient safety.

Methods:   A 12-point questionnaire was sent to 12 current users of AIMS in November 2002.

Results:   The AIMS provides a consistent system of coding, trending and monitoring of incident data. It promotes a patient safety culture and an awareness of system error. Other benefits include the building of teamwork and the implementation of strategies to reduce the prevalence and severity of incidents. The majority of respondents (83%) reported that AIMS investigations resulted in significant changes to equipment usage, medication prescribing or administration, clinical protocols, training programmes and falls risk assessment tools. Although 75% of users reported improvements in patient outcomes, these were difficult to measure. A major limitation of AIMS was the low rate of incident reporting by medical staff. Voluntary reporting systems did not capture all incident data and the information was often too generic for root cause analysis. There were difficulties benchmarking data and concerns were raised regarding the ownership of information. The programme requires ongoing resources to implement change strategies and to maintain incident reporting levels. On a scale of 1 (poor rating) to 10 (excellent rating) the mean benefit rating was 7.6.

Conclusion:   The Australian Incident Monitoring System is beneficial as a component of a clinical risk management strategy. Usefulness could be improved by increased participation by medical staff. The level of resources required should not be underestimated if the programme is to demonstrate improvements to patient outcomes. More recent versions of AIMS promise improved capabilities and will require similar evaluation.


Accepted for publication 4 October 2004.

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03482.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now