ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Nurse and Other Healthcare Managers' Experiences and Recommendations for Patient Incident Reporting Processes and Real-Time Software Development: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo (1) analyse managers' experiences with handling patient safety incident reports in an incident reporting software, identifying key challenges; (2) analyse the incident report processes from the managers' perspective; (3) examine managers' perceptions of ways to support and improve health professionals' experiences of report-handling processes; and (4) investigate how, from their point of view, incident reporting software should be developed in the future.
designA descriptive qualitative study.
methodsInterviews and focus group discussions on Microsoft Teams from 11/2024 to 3/2025, including 16 participants, analysis with deductive and inductive content analysis.
resultsOf 16 participants, 15 were managers and one was a patient safety expert. Most were nurse managers (n = 9). Four discussion themes were divided into 30 categories. Participants highlighted the need to improve the reporting software's terminology, classification and analysis tools. The use of artificial intelligence was desired but not currently integrated into the software. Participants were unsure of their skills to use all the software features. Clear and transparent handling processes, feedback, managers' behaviour and communication methods were seen as key to improving staff's experience with report processes. A real-time warning system was considered beneficial for various incident types. Specific questions must be answered before further developing such systems.
conclusionThis study deepened the understanding of reporting software's challenges regarding its handling features. The handling processes of incident reports had multiple shortcomings, which may negatively affect health professionals' experiences in report handling. Real-time warning systems could assist healthcare managers in processing reports. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Organisational-level guidance for incident report processing is needed. Improvements to report processing and reporting software can improve shared learning and understanding of the status of patient safety. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. REPORTING
methodCOnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research Checklist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.