Clinical incident reporting: wrong time, wrong place

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to generate a debate regarding the value of incident reporting in the UK. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This paper critiques the dominant approach to patients in the UK. FINDINGS: It is suggested that the reliability of health care processes would need to substantially improve before an incident reporting system can have a meaningful impact on patient safety. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Greater benefits in patient safety will be accrued by focusing resources on designing reliable processes rather than the extension of incident reporting. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper offers a local perspective on a potentially flawed national strategy.     

When things go wrong

Case histories are based on actual medical negligence claims, however, certain facts have been omitted or changed by the author to ensure the anonymity of the parties involved. Despite the best intentions of medical practitioners, things do go wrong from time to time and a patient may experience an adverse outcome as a result of a medical practitioner's actions. This article discusses some of the issues that general practitioners should consider when things go wrong.     

Were we really wrong?

Some aspects of the debate concerning the relation between smoking and mortality from cancer and coronary heart disease are considered by one of the participants in the original debate, which occurred primarily in the 1950s and 1960s. Comments are included by J. P. Vandenbroucke (p. 434) and Sander Greenland (pp. 435-6).