37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How do healthcare practitioners use incident data to improve patient safety in Japan? A qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patient incident reporting systems have been widely used for ensuring safety and improving quality in care settings in many countries. However, little is known about the way in which incident data are used by frontline clinical staff. Furthermore, while the use of a systems perspective has been reported as an effective way of learning from incident data in a multidisciplinary team, the level of adaptability of this perspective to a different cultural context has not been widely explored. The primary aim of the study, therefore, was to investigate how healthcare practitioners in Japan perceive the reporting systems and utilize a systems perspective in learning from incident data in acute care and mental health settings.

          Methods

          A non-experimental, descriptive and exploratory research design was adopted with the following two data-collection methods: 1) Sixty-one semi-structured interviews with frontline staff in two hospitals; and 2) Non-participatory observations of thirty-seven regular incident review meetings. The two hospitals in the Greater Tokyo area which were invited to take part were: 1) a not-for-profit, privately-run, acute care hospital with approximately 500 beds; and 2) a publicly-run mental health hospital with 200 beds.

          Results

          While the majority of staff acknowledge the positive impacts of the reporting systems on safety, the observation data found that little consideration was given to systems aspects during formal meetings. The meetings were primarily a place for the exchange of practical information, as opposed to in-depth discussions regarding causes of incidents and corrective measures. Learning from incident data was influenced by four factors: professional boundaries; dealing with a psychological burden; leadership and educational approach; and compatibility of patient safety with patient-centered care.

          Conclusions

          Healthcare organizations are highly complex, comprising of many professional boundaries and risk perceptions, and various communication styles. In order to establish an optimum method of individual and organizational learning and effective safety management, a fine balance has to be struck between respect for professional expertise in a local team and centralized safety oversight with a strong focus on systems. Further research needs to examine culturally-sensitive organizational and professional dynamics, including leader–follower relationships and the impact of resource constraints.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07631-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Health security capacities in the context of COVID-19 outbreak: an analysis of International Health Regulations annual report data from 182 countries

            Summary Background Public health measures to prevent, detect, and respond to events are essential to control public health risks, including infectious disease outbreaks, as highlighted in the International Health Regulations (IHR). In light of the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we aimed to review existing health security capacities against public health risks and events. Methods We used 18 indicators from the IHR State Party Annual Reporting (SPAR) tool and associated data from national SPAR reports to develop five indices: (1) prevent, (2) detect, (3) respond, (4) enabling function, and (5) operational readiness. We used SPAR 2018 data for all of the indicators and categorised countries into five levels across the indices, in which level 1 indicated the lowest level of national capacity and level 5 the highest. We also analysed data at the regional level (using the six geographical WHO regions). Findings Of 182 countries, 52 (28%) had prevent capacities at levels 1 or 2, and 60 (33%) had response capacities at levels 1 or 2. 81 (45%) countries had prevent capacities and 78 (43%) had response capacities at levels 4 or 5, indicating that these countries were operationally ready. 138 (76%) countries scored more highly in the detect index than in the other indices. 44 (24%) countries did not have an effective enabling function for public health risks and events, including infectious disease outbreaks (7 [4%] at level 1 and 37 [20%] at level 2). 102 (56%) countries had level 4 or level 5 enabling function capacities in place. 32 (18%) countries had low readiness (2 [1%] at level 1 and 30 [17%] at level 2), and 104 (57%) countries were operationally ready to prevent, detect, and control an outbreak of a novel infectious disease (66 [36%] at level 4 and 38 [21%] at level 5). Interpretation Countries vary widely in terms of their capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks. Half of all countries analysed have strong operational readiness capacities in place, which suggests that an effective response to potential health emergencies could be enabled, including to COVID-19. Findings from local risk assessments are needed to fully understand national readiness capacities in relation to COVID-19. Capacity building and collaboration between countries are needed to strengthen global readiness for outbreak control. Funding None.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study.

              To assess awareness and use of the current incident reporting system and to identify factors inhibiting reporting of incidents in hospitals. Anonymous survey of 186 doctors and 587 nurses from diverse clinical settings in six South Australian hospitals (response rate = 70.7% and 73.6%, respectively). Knowledge and use of the current reporting system; barriers to incident reporting. Most doctors and nurses (98.3%) were aware that their hospital had an incident reporting system. Nurses were more likely than doctors to know how to access a report (88.3% v 43.0%; relative risk (RR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.63), to have ever completed a report (89.2% v 64.4%; RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61), and to know what to do with the completed report (81.9% v 49.7%; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13). Staff were more likely to report incidents which are habitually reported, often witnessed, and usually associated with immediate outcomes such as patient falls and medication errors requiring corrective treatment. Near misses and incidents which occur over time such as pressure ulcers and DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis were least likely to be reported. The most frequently stated barrier to reporting for doctors and nurses was lack of feedback (57.7% and 61.8% agreeing, respectively). Both doctors and nurses believe they should report most incidents, but nurses do so more frequently than doctors. To improve incident reporting, especially among doctors, clarification is needed of which incidents should be reported, the process needs to be simplified, and feedback given to reporters.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                naonori.kodate@ucd.ie
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                22 February 2022
                22 February 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 241
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.7886.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0768 2743, School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, , University College Dublin, ; Dublin, Ireland
                [2 ]GRID grid.39158.36, ISNI 0000 0001 2173 7691, Public Policy Research Centre, , Hokkaido University, ; Hokkaido, Japan
                [3 ]GRID grid.453210.1, ISNI 0000 0001 2097 7167, ​Fondation France-Japon, L’École Des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, ; Paris, France
                [4 ]GRID grid.26999.3d, ISNI 0000 0001 2151 536X, Institute for Future Initiatives, , University of Tokyo, ; Tokyo, Japan
                [5 ]GRID grid.7886.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0768 2743, UCD Centre for Japanese Studies, ; Dublin, Ireland
                [6 ]GRID grid.415776.6, ISNI 0000 0001 2037 6433, Department of International Health and Collaboration / Department of Health and Welfare Services, , National Institute of Public Health, ; Saitama, Japan
                [7 ]GRID grid.136304.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0370 1101, Graduate School of Nursing, , Chiba University, ; Chiba, Japan
                Article
                7631
                10.1186/s12913-022-07631-0
                8862528
                35193562
                243da5a6-c292-4b37-8b6c-74f7935f60e9
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 19 October 2021
                : 7 February 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Health & Social care
                healthcare services,patient safety,risk management,health policy,acute care,mental health,organizational learning,safety culture,quality improvement,leadership

                Comments

                Comment on this article