Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reasons for the Failure of Incident Reporting in the Healthcare and Rail Industries

  • Conference paper
Components of System Safety

Abstract

Incident reporting systems have recently been established across the UK rail and healthcare industries. These initiatives have built on the perceived success of reporting systems within aviation. There is, however, a danger that the proponents of these schemes have significantly over-estimated the impact that they can have upon the operation of complex, safety-critical systems. This paper, therefore, provides a brief overview of the problems that limit the utility of incident reporting in the rail and healthcare industries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. L.B. Andrews, C. Stocking, T. Krizek, L. Gottlieb, C. Krizek, and T. Vargish. An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care. Lancet, (349):309313, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aviation Safety Reporting System. The Aviation Safety Reporting System. Technical report, NASA Ames Research Centre, California, United States of America, 2000. http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov.

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. Bolte, L. Jackson, V. Roberts, and S. McComb. Accident reconstruction/simulation with event recorders. In International Symposium on Transportation Recorders, pages 367–369. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington DC, USA, 1999. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/rp9901.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  4. British Broadcasting Corporation. Rail summit moves forward on safety. Technical report, News Staff, BBC, London, United Kingdom, 30th November 1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_543000/543019.stm.

  5. British Broadcasting Corporation. Plan to stop dangerous doctors. Technical report, News Staff, BBC, London, United Kingdom, 13 June 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_788000/788805.stm.

    Google Scholar 

  6. British Broadcasting Corporation. Doctors back down in whistle-blower case. Technical report, News Staff, BBC, London, United Kingdom, 2001. hhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/heal th/newsid_1470000/1470590.stm

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. K. Busse and D. J. Wright. Classification and analysis of incidents in complex, medical environments. Topics in Health Information Management, 20(4):1–11, 2000. Special Edition on Human Error and Clinical Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R.M.J. Byrne and S.J. Handley. Reasoning strategies for suppositional deductions. Cognition, pages 1–49, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.M.J. Byrne and A. Tasso. Deductive reasoning with factual, possible and counterfactual conditionals. Memory and Cognition, pages 726–740, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cullen. The Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry Part 1 Re-port. HSE/Stationary Office, London, United Kingdom, 2001. http://www.hse.gov.uk/railway/paddrail/lgril.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Durkin. Digital audio recorders: Life savers, educators and vindicators. In International Symposium on Transportation Recorders, pages 139–144. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington DC, USA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Federal Railroad Administration. Fra guide for preparing accidents/incidents reports. Technical Report DOT/FRA/RRS-22 Effective: January 1997, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington DC, United States of America, 1997. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Objects/guide97.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  13. T. S. Ferry. Modern Accident Investigation and Analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc., London, 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical impact of adverse event reporting. Technical report, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, USA, 1996. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/articles/medcont/synopses.htm.

  15. Food and Drug Administration: A. Morrison. Avoiding sticksfrom sharp containers. User Facility Reporting Bulletins, 1998.http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/fusenews/fuse25.pdf.

  16. Food and Drug Administration: D. Dwyer. Sending the wrong signals. User Facility Reporting Bulletins, 2000. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/fusenews/ufb33.html.

  17. Food and Drug Administration: M. Weick-Brady. Those codes! User Facility Reporting Bulletins, 1996. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/issuel8.pd£.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. Harris. A handbook of rhetorical devices. Technical report, SCC, Cosa Mesa, California, 1997. http://www.sccu.edu/faculty/R_Harris/rhetoric.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D.M. Hausman. Causal Asymmetries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1998.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Health and Safety Commission. The Southall Rail Accident Inquiry Report: HSC action plan to implement recommendations. Technical report, Health and Safety Executive, London, United Kingdom, 2000. http://www.hse.gov.uk/hsc/south01.htm.

  21. Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate. Report on the inspection carried out by hm railway inspectorate during 1998/99 of the management systems in the railway industry covering signals passed at danger. Technical report, Health and Safety Executive, London, United Kingdom, 1999. http://www.hse.gov.uk/railway/spad01.htm.

  22. Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate. Assessment criteria for railway safety cases. Technical report, Health and Safety Executive, London, United Kingdom, 2000. http://www.hse.gov.uk/railway/criteria/index.htm.

  23. Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate. Internal inquiry report: Events lead-ing up to the ladbroke grove rail accident on 5 october 1999. Techni-cal report, Health and Safety Executive, London, United Kingdom, 2000. http://www.hse.gov.uk/railway/paddrail/inq-03.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  24. V.D. Hopkin. The impact of automation. In M.W. Smolensky and E.S. Stein, editors, Human Factors in Air Traffic Control, pages 391–419. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. Javaux. The cognitive complexity of pilot-mode interaction. In HCI-Aero’98: Conference on Human-machine Interaction in Aeronautics, Montreal, Canada, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A.K. Jha, G.J. Kuperman, J.M. Teich, L. Leape, B. Shea, E. Rittenberg, E. Burdick, D.L. Seger, M. Vander Vliet, and D.W. Bates. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 5(3):305–314, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. C.W. Johnson. Don’t keep reminding me: The limitations of incident reporting. In K. Abbott, J.-J. Speyer, and G.Boy, editors, HCI Aero 2000: International Conference on Human-Computer Interfaces in Aeronautics, pages 17–22, Toulouse, France, 2000. Cepadues-Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  28. C.W. Johnson. Software support for incident reporting systems in safety-critical applications. In F. Koornneef and M. van der Meulen, editors, Computer Safety, Reliability and Security: Proceedings of 19th International Conference SAFECOMP 2000, LNCS 1943, pages 96–106. Springer Verlag, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. C.W. Johnson. A Handbook of Incident Reporting: A Guide to the Detection, Mitigation and Avoidance of Failure in Safety-Critical Systems. Springer Verlag, UK, 2002 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  30. C.W. Johnson, G. Le Galo, and M. Blaine. Guidelines for the development of occurrence reporting systems in european air traffic control. Technical report, European Organisation for Air Traffic Control (EUROCONTROL), Brussels, Belgium, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  31. C.W. Johnson, J.C. McCarthy, and P.C. Wright. Using a formal language to support natural language in accident reports. Ergonomics, 38(6):1265–1283, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. I. Kennedy. Learning from Bristol: the report of the public inquiry into children’s heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. Command Paper: CM 5207. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, United Kingdom, 2001. http://www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk.

    Google Scholar 

  33. U. Kjellen. Prevention of Accidents Through Experience Feedback. Taylor and Francis, London, United Kingdom, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  34. L. Kohn, J. Corrigan, and M. Donaldson. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington DC, United States of America, 1999. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America.

    Google Scholar 

  35. P.B. Ladkin. Causal reasoning about accidents. In F. Koorneef and M. van der Meulen, editors, SAFECOMP 2000, Lecture Notes in Computing Science No. 1943, pages 344–355. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  36. N.G. Leveson. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, United States of America, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  37. D. Lewis. Counterfactuals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J.L. Mackie. Causation and conditions. In E. Sosa, editor, Causation and Conditions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  39. NASA. NASA procedures and guidelines for mishap reporting, investigating and record-keeping. Technical Report NASA PG 8621.1, Safety and Risk Management Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington DC, USA, 2001. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/safeheal.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  40. NASA (D. Goldin). When The Best Must Do Even Better“ Remarks by NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA March 29, 2000. Technical report, NASA Headquarters, Washington DC, USA, 2000. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/ftp/Goldin/00text/jpl_remarks.txt.

    Google Scholar 

  41. National Transportation Safety Board. Railroad Accident Report Col-lision of Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District Train 102 with a Tractor-Trailer Portage, Indiana June 18, 1998. Technical Report NTSB/RAR-99/03, NTSB, Washington, DC United States of America, 1999. http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1999/RAR9903.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  42. National Transportation Safety Board. Safety Study: Evaluation of U.S. Department of Transportation Efforts in the 1990s to Address Operator Fatigue. Technical Report Safety Report NTSB/SR-99/01 May 1999 PB99917002 Notation 7155, NTSB, Washington, DC United States of America, 1999. http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1999/SR9901.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  43. NHS Expert Group on Learning from Adverse Events in the NHS. An organisation with a memory. Technical report, National Health Service, London, United Kingdom, 2000. http://www.doh.gov.uk/orgmemreport/index.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  44. C. Perrow. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, United States of America, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J. Reason. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  46. S.D. Sagan. The Limits of Safety: Organisations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, United States of America, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  47. A. Scrivener. Special report on ladbroke grove: ‘pass the signal - pass the blame’. The Locomotive Journal, pages 8–9, June 2000. Quoted extracts from evidence to Lord Cullen’s inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove accident, http://www.asleforg.uk/dox/loco_june_00.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  48. G. Sitwell and S. Purcel. Assessment of Investigations into SignalsPassed at Danger (SPADs). Technical Report BL2077 004 TR06, WSAtkins Rail Limited, under contract from the HSE, London, UK, 2001. http://www.hse.gov.uk/railway/spad/spadrepl.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  49. P. Snowdon and C.W. Johnson. Results of a preliminary survey into the usability of accident and incident reports. In J. Noyes and M. Bransby, editors, People in Control: An international conference on human interfaces in control rooms, cockpits and command centres, pages 258–262, Savoy Place, London, United Kingdom, 1999. The Institute of Electrical Engineers. Bath, UK, 21–23 June 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Systems Safety Society: New Mexico Chapter. System safety analysis handbook. Technical report, Systems Safety Society, Unionvile, VA, USA, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  51. T.W. van der Schaaf, D.A. Lucas, and A.R. Hale. Near Miss Reporting as a Safety Tool. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  52. W. van Vuuren. Organisational Failure: An Exploratory Study in the Steel Industry and the Medical Domain. PhD thesis, Institute for Business Engineering and Technology Application, Technical University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  53. D. Vaughan. The Challenger Launch Decision. Chicago University Press, Chicago, United States of America, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  54. C. Vincent, S. Taylor-Adams, and N. Stanhope. Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. British Medical Journal, pages 1154–1157, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, G12 9QQ, Glasgow, Scotland

    C. W. Johnson

Authors
  1. C. W. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Redmill Consultancy, 22 Onslow Gardens, N10 3JU, London, UK

    Felix Redmill

  2. Centre for Software Reliability, University of Newcastle, NE1 7RU, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Tom Anderson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag London

About this paper

Cite this paper

Johnson, C.W. (2002). Reasons for the Failure of Incident Reporting in the Healthcare and Rail Industries. In: Redmill, F., Anderson, T. (eds) Components of System Safety. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0173-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0173-4_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-561-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0173-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation