Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan.
Hatakeyama, Yosuke; Fujita, Shigeru; Iida, Shuhei; Nagai, Yoji; Shimamori, Yoshiko; Ayuzawa, Junko; Hirao, Tomohiro; Onishi, Ryo; Seto, Kanako; Matsumoto, Kunichika; Hasegawa, Tomonori.
Afiliación
  • Hatakeyama Y; Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Fujita S; Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Iida S; All Japan Hospital Association, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Nagai Y; Nerima General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Shimamori Y; Institute for Healthcare Quality Improvement, Tokyo Healthcare Foundation, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Ayuzawa J; All Japan Hospital Association, Tokyo, Japan.
  • Hirao T; Hitachinaka General Hospital, Hitachinaka, Ibaraki, Japan.
  • Onishi R; Iwate Medical University School of Nursing, Iwate, Japan.
  • Seto K; Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
  • Matsumoto K; Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan.
  • Hasegawa T; Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0239179, 2020.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32941481
ABSTRACT
Various patient safety interventions have been implemented since the late 1990s, but their evaluation has been lacking. To obtain basic information for prioritizing patient safety interventions, this study aimed to extract high-priority interventions in Japan and to identify the factors that influence the setting of priority. Six perspectives (contribution, dissemination, impact, cost, urgency, and priority) on 42 patient safety interventions classified into 3 levels (system, organizational, and clinical) were evaluated by Japanese experts using the Delphi technique. We examined the relationships of the levels and the perspectives on interventions with the transition of the consensus state in rounds 1 and 3. After extracting the high-priority interventions, a chi-squared test was used to examine the relationship of the levels and the impact/cost ratio with high priority. Regression models were used to examine the influence of each perspective on priority. There was a significant relationship between the level of interventions and the transition of the consensus state (p = 0.033). System-level interventions had a low probability of achieving consensus. "Human resources interventions," "professional education and training," "medication management/reconciliation protocols," "pay-for performance (P4P) schemes and financing for safety," "digital technology solutions to improve safety," and "hand hygiene initiatives" were extracted as high-priority interventions. The level and the impact/cost ratio of interventions had no significant relationships with high priority. In the regression model, dissemination and impact had an influence on priority (ß = -0.628 and 0.941, respectively; adjusted R-squared = 0.646). The influence of impact and dissemination on the priority of interventions suggests that it is important to examine the dissemination degree and impact of interventions in each country for prioritizing interventions.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Testimonio de Experto / Seguridad del Paciente / Política de Salud / Prioridades en Salud Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies País/Región como asunto: Asia Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Japón

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Testimonio de Experto / Seguridad del Paciente / Política de Salud / Prioridades en Salud Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies País/Región como asunto: Asia Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Japón