• B Wilson, H L Bekker, and F Fylan.
• Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK. barbara.wilson@christie-tr.nwest.nhs.uk
• Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Oct 1;17(5):364-7.

ObjectiveTo develop a validated measure of professionals' attitudes towards clinical adverse event reporting (CAER).DesignCross-sectional survey with follow-up.Participants201 doctors and nurse/nurse-midwives undergoing postqualification training in Leeds, York and Hull Universities in 2003.MaterialsA questionnaire which comprised 73 items extracted from interviews with professionals; a second, statistically reduced version of this questionnaire.ResultsThe analysis supported a 25-item questionnaire comprising five factors: blame as a consequence of reporting (six items); criteria for reporting (six items); colleagues' expectations (six items); perceived benefits of reporting events (five items); and clarity of reporting procedures (two items). The resulting questionnaire, the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Effects Scale (RoCAES), had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83) and external reliability (Spearman's correlation = 0.65). The construct validity hypothesis-doctors have less positive attitudes towards CAER than nurses-was supported (t = 5.495; p<0.0001).ConclusionInitial development of an evidence-based, psychometrically rigorous measure of attitudes towards CAER has been reported. Following additional testing, RoCAES may be used to systematically elicit professionals' views about, and inform interventions to improve, reporting behaviour.

21 keywords...

hide…