Introduction Healthcare organisations worldwide are expected to investigate or review incidents that unintentionally harm or could cause harm. Investigation findings are presented in a written report, which is arguably a proxy measure for the quality of investigations. The report is an important document to be read and acted upon. The aims of this study were: (1) to design a tool to support the writing and review of healthcare safety investigation reports, and (2) to validate the content of the tool. Methods The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: The initial content of the tool was developed using relevant published literature and building consensus with 25 specialist participants from the UK and Australia. Phase 2: Content validity of the tool was assessed for relevance and clarity in two e-Delphi survey rounds with users of the tool. Using a 4-point scale, a median of 3 or 4 and an interquartile range of less than or equal to 1.5 were used to determine consensus. Results Phase 1: A tool containing eight areas of review with accompanying descriptors was developed. For each area of review, a three-point ordinal rating scale along with a comments box for formative self-assessment was included. Phase 2: At the end of the round 1 survey, there was consensus on all but one area of review in the tool. By the end of the round 2 survey, consensus was reached on all areas of review. No additional areas of review were added and none were removed. Some descriptors were amended to improve clarity. Conclusion We co-designed and validated the content of a tool that can be used to inform the quality of safety investigation reports and learning in terms of a systems-based approach. The tool has multiple uses ranging from self-assessment for report writers to facilitating oversight of the quality of healthcare safety investigation reports. Future work could focus on building further evidence of the tool's overall utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bowie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: