Dataset Information

Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan.

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 (? = -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.

SUBMITTER: Hatakeyama Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7497979 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan.

Hatakeyama Yosuke Y Fujita Shigeru S Iida Shuhei S Nagai Yoji Y Shimamori Yoshiko Y Ayuzawa Junko J Hirao Tomohiro T Onishi Ryo R Seto Kanako K Matsumoto Kunichika K Hasegawa Tomonori T

PloS one 20200917 9

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 ...[more]

PMID: 32941481

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although a variety of patient safety interventions have been implemented, prioritizing them in a limited resource environment is important. The intervention priorities of patient safety managers may differ from those of patient safety experts. This study aimed to clarify the difference in prioritization of interventions between experts and safety managers to better identify interventions that should be promoted in Japan. We performed a secondary data analysis of two surveys: the Delphi survey for Japanese experts and a nationwide questionnaire survey for safety managers in hospitals. Regarding the 32 interventions constituting 14 organizational-level and 18 clinical-level interventions examined in the previous studies, we assessed three correlations to examine the difference in prioritization between experts and safety managers: correlations between experts and safety managers in the three perspectives (contribution, dissemination, and priority), those between priorities of experts and safety managers at the clinical and organizational level, and those among the three perspectives in experts and safety managers. Contribution (r = 0.768) and dissemination (r = 0.689) of patient safety interventions evaluated by experts and safety managers were positively correlated, but priorities were not. Interventions with priorities that differed between experts and safety managers were identified. In experts, there was no significant correlation between contribution and priority or between dissemination and priority. For safety managers, contributions (r = 0.812) and dissemination (r = 0.691) were positively correlated with priority. Our results suggest that patient safety managers evaluated future priority based on past contributions and current dissemination, whereas experts evaluated future priority based on other factors, such as expected impacts in the future, as mentioned in the previous study. In health policymaking, promotion of patient safety interventions that were given high priority by experts, but low priority by safety managers, should be considered with possible incentives.

Project description:ImportanceAs of April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, new federal rules in the U.S. mandate that providers offer patients access to their online clinical records.ObjectiveTo solicit the view of an international panel of experts on the effects on mental health patients, including possible benefits and harms, of accessing their clinical notes.DesignAn online 3-round Delphi poll.SettingOnline.ParticipantsInternational experts identified as clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informaticians with extensive experience and/or research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.Main outcomes, and measuresAn expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.ResultsA total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded to Round 1. A qualitative review of responses yielded 88 distinct items: 42 potential benefits, and 48 potential harms. A total of 56 of 70 (80%) experts responded to Round 2, and 52 of 56 (93%) responded to Round 3. Consensus was reached on 65 of 88 (74%) of survey items. There was consensus that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients' understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments, and that access could enhance patient recall and sense of empowerment. Experts also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization. However, panelists predicted there could be an increase in patients demanding changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians would be less detailed/accurate in documentation.Conclusions and relevanceThis iterative process of survey responses and ratings yielded consensus that there would be multiple benefits and few harms to patients from accessing their mental health notes. Questions remain about the impact of open notes on professional autonomy, and further empirical work into this practice innovation is warranted.

Dataset Information

Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan.

Publications

Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets