Problems with incident reporting: Reports lead rarely to recommendations

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim and objective</jats:title><jats:p>To analyse trends in incident reporting over the last 5 years and determine how many reports led to recommendations?</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Patient safety incident reporting systems have been used in health care for years. However, they have a significant weakness in that reports often do not lead to any visible action.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>The study is a retrospective register study. STROBE checklist was applied in the preparation of the paper.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Data were collected from a web‐based incident reporting database (HaiPro) for a social‐ and healthcare organisation in Finland, covering the period from 2011–2015.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>In total, 16,019 incident reports were analysed. In 2.7% (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 426) of all reports, there was written recommendation to develop action that such incidents would not happen again. Those reports were classified into seven categories: education, introduction and information, introduction to work, patient care, guidelines, instruments and IT programmes, and the physical environment.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Managers get major amount incident reports. There should be (a) a definition what kind of events should be reported, (b) a definition for how serious events managers have to make a recommendation and (c) control that recommendations are implemented.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Relevance to clinical practice</jats:title><jats:p>There is a need for more action to promote patient safety based on incident reports.</jats:p></jats:sec>