Recent Coverage

February 16, 2021 Defining Best Practices for Interhospital Transfers

Interhospital transfers (IHT) are important yet recognized as high-risk transitions in care. This study was funded by CRICO to help define the best practice principles for IHTs and identify improvement opportunities.


February 12, 2021 The MPL Association Appoints Mark Reynolds, CRICO President and CEO, a Board Officer

CRICO President and CEO Mark E. Reynolds has been named as a board member of the Medical Practice Liability Association.

November 16, 2020 Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Detection of Allergic Reactions Using Safety Event Reports Across Hospitals

This study, funded by CRICO grants, utilized a deep learning algorithm to identify instances of allergic reactions in the free-text electronic narratives of hospital safety reports.


View All News & Research

Integrating Incident Data from Five Reporting Systems to Assess Patient Safety: Making Sense of the Elephant

  • September 10, 2010

This study, featuring data from CRICO’s Claims Management, Analysis, and Processing System (CMAPS) and co-authored by CRICO’s Chief Medical Officer Luke Sato and Vice President of Patient Safety Ann Louise Puopolo, compares five different reporting systems within one health care institution to identify the differences between them.

By examining the impact of five reporting systems, incident reporting, patient complaints, risk management, medical malpractice claims, and executive walk rounds, this study was able to determine which patient safety concerns could be identified by each system. Data was collected over a 22-month period at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, with data for malpractice claims collected from 1996-2006 using CRICO’s CMAPS database.

Little overlap was found in the reporting of each of the five systems, but each was found to address specific patient safety concerns that others could not. Communication problems appeared most often in patient complaints and malpractice claims. Malpractice claims saw the most reports in errors in clinical judgment. Walk rounds tended to identify issues with equipment and supplies, while adverse event reporting systems highlighted identification issues, especially mislabeled specimens. This suggests that hospitals should be using a variety of reporting systems to gain the full picture of patient safety issues.

Citation for the Full-text Article

Levtzion-Korach O, Frankel A, Alcalai H, et al. Integrating incident data from five reporting systems to assess patient safety: Making sense of the elephant. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010 Sep; 36(9): 402-410. doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(10)36059-4.