Toho University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Social Medicine, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 1;18(3):e0280475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280475. eCollection 2023.
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.
尽管已经实施了各种患者安全干预措施,但在资源有限的环境下对其进行优先排序很重要。患者安全管理人员的干预措施优先级可能与患者安全专家不同。本研究旨在阐明专家和安全管理人员在干预措施优先级方面的差异,以便更好地确定在日本应推广的干预措施。我们对两项调查的二级数据进行了分析:日本专家的德尔菲调查和医院安全管理人员的全国问卷调查。对于之前研究中检查的 32 项干预措施,这些干预措施构成了 14 项组织层面和 18 项临床层面的干预措施,我们评估了三个相关性,以检验专家和安全管理人员之间的优先级差异:专家和安全管理人员在三个视角(贡献、传播和优先级)之间的相关性,专家和安全管理人员在临床和组织层面的优先级之间的相关性,以及专家和安全管理人员在三个视角之间的相关性。专家和安全管理人员评估的患者安全干预措施的贡献(r = 0.768)和传播(r = 0.689)呈正相关,但优先级却没有。确定了专家和安全管理人员之间优先级不同的干预措施。在专家中,贡献(r = 0.812)和传播(r = 0.691)与优先级呈正相关。我们的结果表明,患者安全管理人员根据过去的贡献和当前的传播来评估未来的优先级,而专家则根据未来的预期影响等其他因素来评估未来的优先级,如之前的研究所述。在卫生政策制定中,应考虑激励措施,推广专家认为优先级高但安全管理人员认为优先级低的患者安全干预措施。