Development and validation of a tool to aid writing and reviewing of healthcare safety investigation reports: A modified Delphi study

Introduction Healthcare organisations worldwide are expected to investigate or review incidents that unintentionally harm or could cause harm. Investigation findings are presented in a written report, which is arguably a proxy measure for the quality of investigations. The report is an important document to be read and acted upon. The aims of this study were: (1) to design a tool to support the writing and review of healthcare safety investigation reports, and (2) to validate the content of the tool. Methods The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: The initial content of the tool was developed using relevant published literature and building consensus with 25 specialist participants from the UK and Australia. Phase 2: Content validity of the tool was assessed for relevance and clarity in two e-Delphi survey rounds with users of the tool. Using a 4-point scale, a median of 3 or 4 and an interquartile range of less than or equal to 1.5 were used to determine consensus. Results Phase 1: A tool containing eight areas of review with accompanying descriptors was developed. For each area of review, a three-point ordinal rating scale along with a comments box for formative self-assessment was included. Phase 2: At the end of the round 1 survey, there was consensus on all but one area of review in the tool. By the end of the round 2 survey, consensus was reached on all areas of review. No additional areas of review were added and none were removed. Some descriptors were amended to improve clarity. Conclusion We co-designed and validated the content of a tool that can be used to inform the quality of safety investigation reports and learning in terms of a systems-based approach. The tool has multiple uses ranging from self-assessment for report writers to facilitating oversight of the quality of healthcare safety investigation reports. Future work could focus on building further evidence of the tool's overall utility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management
Published
2026-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/25160435261494084
Primary Topic
Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development and validation of a tool to aid writing and reviewing of healthcare safety investigation reports: A modified Delphi study

Sarahjane Jones, Elizabeth Crisp, Duncan McNab, Peter Damian Hibbert et al.
Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management
Patient Safety and Medication Errors
article

Development and validation of a tool to aid writing and reviewing of healthcare safety investigation reports: A modified Delphi study

Sarahjane Jones, Elizabeth Crisp, Duncan McNab, Peter Damian Hibbert, Melanie Ottewill, Ethel Oldfield, Helen Vosper, Paul Bowie, Tom McEwan, Manoj Kumar, Andrew Murphy-Pittock, Alexia Pellowe, Veronica Rainey, Al ROSS, Helen Higham, Rosemary Lim (7150514), Jennifer O’Donnell, Tracey Herlihey, Hugh Currie, Meredith Makeham, Martin Duffy, Ian Davidson, Nicola Steevenson, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Catherine Paton
article en

Abstract

Introduction Healthcare organisations worldwide are expected to investigate or review incidents that unintentionally harm or could cause harm. Investigation findings are presented in a written report, which is arguably a proxy measure for the quality of investigations. The report is an important document to be read and acted upon. The aims of this study were: (1) to design a tool to support the writing and review of healthcare safety investigation reports, and (2) to validate the content of the tool. Methods The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: The initial content of the tool was developed using relevant published literature and building consensus with 25 specialist participants from the UK and Australia. Phase 2: Content validity of the tool was assessed for relevance and clarity in two e-Delphi survey rounds with users of the tool. Using a 4-point scale, a median of 3 or 4 and an interquartile range of less than or equal to 1.5 were used to determine consensus. Results Phase 1: A tool containing eight areas of review with accompanying descriptors was developed. For each area of review, a three-point ordinal rating scale along with a comments box for formative self-assessment was included. Phase 2: At the end of the round 1 survey, there was consensus on all but one area of review in the tool. By the end of the round 2 survey, consensus was reached on all areas of review. No additional areas of review were added and none were removed. Some descriptors were amended to improve clarity. Conclusion We co-designed and validated the content of a tool that can be used to inform the quality of safety investigation reports and learning in terms of a systems-based approach. The tool has multiple uses ranging from self-assessment for report writers to facilitating oversight of the quality of healthcare safety investigation reports. Future work could focus on building further evidence of the tool's overall utility.

Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management
Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (GB), The University of Sydney (AU), University of Aberdeen (GB), University of Staffordshire (GB), NHS Ayrshire and Arran (GB), NHS Education for Scotland (GB), NHS Tayside (GB), University of Oxford (GB), NHS Grampian (GB), NHS England, University of Reading (GB), University of Glasgow (GB), Cardiff University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Patient Safety and Medication Errors
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.