Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale: a measure of doctor and nurse attitudes to adverse event reporting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Full text download(s)


Published copy (DOI)


  • B. Wilson
  • H.L. Bekker
  • F. Fylan


Publication details

JournalQuality & Safety in Health Care
DatePublished - Oct 2008
Issue number5
Number of pages4
Pages (from-to)364-367
Original languageEnglish


Objective: To develop a validated measure of professionals' attitudes towards clinical adverse event reporting (CAER).

Design: Cross-sectional survey with follow-up.

Participants: 201 doctors and nurse/nurse-midwives undergoing postqualification training in Leeds, York and Hull Universities in 2003.

Materials: A questionnaire which comprised 73 items extracted from interviews with professionals; a second, statistically reduced version of this questionnaire.

Results: The analysis supported a 25-item questionnaire comprising five factors: blame as a consequence of reporting (six items); criteria for reporting (six items); colleagues' expectations (six items); perceived benefits of reporting events (five items); and clarity of reporting procedures (two items). The resulting questionnaire, the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Effects Scale (RoCAES), had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83) and external reliability (Spearman's correlation = 0.65). The construct validity hypothesis -doctors have less positive attitudes towards CAER than nurses -was supported (t = 5.495; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Initial development of an evidence-based, psychometrically rigorous measure of attitudes towards CAER has been reported. Following additional testing, RoCAES may be used to systematically elicit professionals' views about, and inform interventions to improve, reporting behaviour.

Bibliographical note

© 2008 BMJ Publishing.

    Research areas


Discover related content

Find related publications, people, projects, datasets and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations