METHODS: We searched the official Web sites and homepages of the responsible leading patient safety agencies of the three countries. We reviewed all publicly available guidelines, regulatory documents, government reports that included policies, guidelines, strategy papers, reports, evaluation programs, as well as scientific articles and gray literature related to the incident reporting system. We used the World Health Organization components of patient safety reporting system as the guidelines for comparison and analyzed the documents using descriptive comparative analysis.
RESULTS: Taiwan had the most incidents reported, followed by Malaysia and Indonesia. Taiwan Patient Safety Reporting (TPR) and the Malaysian Reporting and Learning System had similar attributes and followed the World Health Organization components for incident reporting. We found differences between the Indonesian system and both of TPR and the Malaysian system. Indonesia did not have an external reporting deadline, analysis and learning were conducted at the national level, and there was a lack of transparency and public access to data and reports. All systems need to establish a clear and structured incident reporting evaluation framework if they are to be successful.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TPR and Malaysian system, the Indonesian patient safety incident reporting system seemed to be ineffective because it failed to acquire adequate national incident reporting data and lacked transparency; these deficiencies inhibited learning at the national level. We suggest further research on the implementation at the hospital level to see how far national guidelines and policy have been implemented in each country.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study employed a mixed method explanatory sequential approach. We surveyed 262 health workers and interviewed 12 health workers. Descriptive statistical (frequency distributions and summary measures) analysis was performed to assess the distributions of variables using SPSS. We used thematic analysis for the qualitative data analysis.
RESULTS: We discovered a good level of open disclosure practice, open disclosure system, attitude toward open disclosure and process, open disclosure according to the level of harm resulting from PSIs in the quantitative phase. The qualitative phase revealed that most participants were confused about the difference between incident reporting and incident disclosure. Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that major errors or adverse events should be disclosed. The contradictory findings may be due to a lack of awareness of incident disclosure. The important factors in disclosing the incident are effective communication, type of incident, and patient and family characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Open disclosure is novel for Indonesian health professionals. A good open disclosure system in hospitals could address several issues such as lack of knowledge, lack of policy support, lack of training, and lack of policy. To limit the negative implications of disclosing situations, the government should develop supportive policies at the national level and organize many initiatives at the hospital level.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the translated Indonesian version of the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture (NHSOPSC-INA).
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional survey conducted using NHSOPSC-INA. A total of 258 participants from 20 NH in Indonesia were engaged. Participants included NH managers, caregivers, administrative staff, nurses and support staff with at least junior high school education. The SPSS 23.0 was used for descriptive data analysis and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) estimation. The AMOS (version 22) was used to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the questionnaire's dimensional structure.
RESULTS: The NHSOPSC CFA test originally had 12 dimensions with 42 items and was modified to eight dimensions with 26 items in the Indonesian version. The deleted dimensions were 'Staffing' (4 items), 'Compliance with procedure' (3 items), 'Training and skills' (3 items), 'non-punitive response to mistakes' (4 items) and 'Organisational learning' (2 items). The subsequent analysis revealed an accepted model with 26 NHSOPSC-INA items (root mean square error of approximation = 0.091, comparative fit index = 0.815, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.793, CMIN = 798.488, df = 291, CMIN/Df = 2.74, GFI = 0.782, AGFI = 0.737, p
METHODS: This observational study used an online survey and included 143 OR workers. Descriptive statistics and multilinear regression were used to examine how patient safety culture and infection prevention affects level of patient safety.
RESULTS: Most responders worked in excellent-accredited general hospitals. Most responders were male, aged between 26 to 40 years old, and had bachelor's degrees. Most were hospital-experienced nurses. Less than half had worked in units for over ten years. Organizational Learning - Continuous Improvement; Teamwork and Handoffs; and Information Exchange had the most positive responses in the OR. However, Staffing, Work Pace, and Patient Safety ranked lowest. Organizational Learning - Continuous Improvement and Hospital Management Support for Infection Prevention Efforts were found to affect OR patient safety level perceptions.
CONCLUSION: According to the findings of our study, the overall patient safety culture in the operating room remains weak which highlights the importance of continuing efforts to improve patient safety in the OR. Further study could be directed to identify organizational learning in infection prevention to enhance the patient safety in the OR.