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.
METHOD: Based on the proposed model, a quantitative method was employed to obtain data from G7 construction industry operating within the peninsular Malaysia. Out of the 180 copies of questionnaire, 165 copies were properly filled, returned, and used for the analysis. PLS-SEM was used to analyze the obtained data.
RESULTS: The findings of the study affirmed that specialization, centralization, and management of risk by the construction industry had positive correlation.
CONCLUSIONS: As anticipated, coercive pressure had positive moderating correlation with both formalization and the management of risk by the construction industry. Similarly, it was also found that in the course of carrying out construction activities, coercive pressure made significant interactive influence on formalization, specialization, and centralization. Practical Applications: Coercive pressure reduced the frequency of accidents among workers in the process of carrying out construction works.