Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Escoto, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Beasley, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Escoto, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Beasley, J. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Multiple User Considerations and Their Implications in Medical Error Reporting System Design

Kamisha Hamilton Escoto

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Ben-Tzion Karsh

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

John W. Beasley

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Objective: The study examined the differences between physicians and clinical assistants in their preferences for a statewide medical error reporting system. Background: Medical error reporting systems have been proposed as a means for studying the causes of medical error. Knowledge of user similarities and differences is needed for the development of design guidelines for medical error reporting systems. Method: Separate focus groups composed of 8 physicians and 6 clinical assistants (physician clinical support staff) were conducted. One-hour focus group meetings were conducted via toll-free teleconference lines one to two times per month for 9 months. All conversations were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. An inductive content analysis was conducted. Results: Eighty-six major and minor themes emerged. Differences between physicians and clinical assistants included rules and regulations governing the use of the system, the medium of reporting, and aspects of the organization that may affect reporting levels. Conclusions: Although physicians and clinical assistants shared similar preferences and beliefs surrounding error reporting, there were differences that need to be considered if medical error reporting systems are to be effective. Application: To successfully deploy a medical error reporting system, the system itself must be designed for the potential users. This study uncovered previously underappreciated issues that should be incorporated into the design and implementation process. Actual or potential applications of this research include the improvement of the design and implementation of medical error reporting systems to account for the needs of different types of users.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 48, No. 1, 48-58 (2006)
DOI: 10.1518/001872006776412207


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?