Table 3. Overview of participant responses to draft recommendations for key design features of consumer reporting systems

Designing Consumer Reporting Systems for Patient Safety Events

RecommendationSummary of Participants' Responses
Types of information/Sources of reports
(Recommendations 1.1, 1.2)
  • Support for recommendation.
Purpose and goals of reporting system
(Recommendation 2.1)
  • Support for main recommendation.
  • Strong support for accountability as a primary purpose of system; interpretation of "accountability" varied.
  • Add patient empowerment as a purpose.
Level of operation
(Recommendation 2.2)
  • Support for recommendation.
  • Interpretation of "local level" varies.
Access, reporting modalities, format, and accessibility
(Recommendations 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 6.2)
  • Support for recommendations.
  • Mixed opinions about reporting through a live system representative.
  • Specify that system should be accessible to people with disabilities.
Anonymity and confidentiality
(Recommendation 4.5)
  • Support for consumers having the option of confidential reporting.
  • Concerns about anonymous reporting, although most support as an option for health care providers and other health care system employees.
  • Support for legal protection for confidential information.
Type of organization
(Recommendation 4.1)
  • Support for consumer involvement.
  • System should not be exclusively consumer led; health care providers and other experts are necessary for governance and operation of the system.
  • Should be linked with government in some way, but also expressed concerns about governmental ties.
Feedback to consumers
(Recommendation 6.3)
  • Support for recommendation.
  • Need to define "timely" and "meaningful".
  • Mixed opinions about system not being able to guarantee that the hospital or health care setting will give feedback to patient/family member.
  • Need to make clear to consumers what system can and cannot do.
Linkages
(Recommendations 3.1, 5.1)
  • Support for recommendations.
  • Should be consumer's decision whether reported information is forwarded to health care facility.
Analytic functionality
(Recommendation 3.2)
  • Mixed reactions to recommendation that system will analyze causes of patient safety events on a broad scale (versus individual cases).
  • Some concern that consumer's may be less motivated to report if they know their case might not be prioritized for analysis.
Public reporting
(Recommendation 5.2)
  • Most support recommendation.
  • Questions about whether public reporting will lead to improvements in health care and patient safety.
Maximizing reporting
(Recommendation 6.1)
  • Support for recommendation.
  • Dissemination efforts necessary in health care settings and community at large.
Page last reviewed July 2011
Internet Citation: Table 3. Overview of participant responses to draft recommendations for key design features of consumer reporting systems: Designing Consumer Reporting Systems for Patient Safety Events. July 2011. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patient-safety-resources/resources/consumer-experience/reporting/table3.html