Perceptions of U.S. and U.K. Incident Reporting Systems: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the extent, range, and nature of the literature that concerns healthcare providers' perceptions following the use of incident reporting systems (IRSs) in the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.). Literature was compared describing providers' perceptions of reporting patient safety incidents using IRSs from healthcare systems built on public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit insurers in the U.S., with providers' perceptions using an IRS within a universal government supported healthcare system in the U.K. METHODS: This scoping review searched literature from 4 electronic databases, producing 4863 articles between January 2010 to March 2023. RESULTS: Eleven U.S. and 8 U.K. articles met the inclusion criteria. Providers described system and individual barriers when using IRSs. The U.S. providers described more concerns regarding individual barriers (fear of punitive response or retaliation, feel incapable or shamed, unsure of what constitutes a patient safety incident, and concerned about litigation) than providers in the U.K. Both countries had similar responses regarding system barriers, except for U.K. providers who were more concerned than the U.S. about damage to professional culture. Providers in both countries believed incident reporting was ineffective and time consuming with hospital leaders seldom acknowledging or integrating improvement measures based on reported incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Sustainable improvements in patient care must be driven by hospital leadership who create just cultures where reporting of safety concerns is encouraged and respected within nonpunitive milieus.