This study investigated the practical and cultural barriers of reporting patient safety incidents in three accredited public hospitals in East Java, Indonesia. Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach using a convergent parallel design. We surveyed 1121 health workers and interviewed 27 managerial staff members from the sampled hospitals. A chi-square analysis was performed to evaluate differences in demographic factors, barriers to reporting, and practices of reporting between those who had reported an incident and those who had witnessed an incident but had not reported it. NVivo 11 software was used to perform the qualitative data analysis. Results: This study had a 76.53% response rate. The quantitative evaluation identified significant differences in professions and work units and in participation in quality and safety training between the reporting group and the non-reporting group. The analysis of practical barriers displayed significant differences between the groups with the following responses: "did not know how to report," "did not know where to report," and "lack of feedback". For cultural barriers, a significant difference was shown only for the response "did not want conflict." In the qualitative assessment, most of the interview participants reported lack of knowledge and lack of socialization or training as practical barriers in reporting incidents. Furthermore, reluctance and fear to report were mentioned as cultural barriers by most of the interviewees. Conclusion: Because there were conflicting findings in the barriers of reporting incidents, these barriers must be identified, discussed, and resolved by health workers and their managers or supervisors to improve incident reporting. Managers must foster open communication and build positive connections with health workers. Further research is necessary to focus on possible ways of addressing the barriers to reporting.
BackgroundIncident reporting is widely acknowledged as one of the ways of improving patient safety and has been implemented in Indonesia for more than ten years. However, there was no significant increase in the number of reported incidents nationally. The study described in this paper aimed at assessing the extent to which Indonesia’s patient safety incident reporting system has adhered to the World Health Organization (WHO) characteristics for successful reporting.MethodsWe interviewed officials from 16 organizations at national, provincial and district or city levels in Indonesia. We reviewed several policies, guidelines and regulations pertinent to incident reporting in Indonesia and examined whether the WHO characteristics were covered in these documents. We used NVivo version 9 to manage the interview data and applied thematic analysis to organize our findings.ResultsOur study found that there was an increased need for a non-punitive system, confidentiality, expert-analysis and timeliness of reporting, system-orientation and responsiveness. The existing guidelines, policies and regulations in Indonesia, to a large extent, have not satisfied all the required WHO characteristics of incident reporting. Furthermore, awareness and understanding of the reporting system amongst officials at almost all levels were lacking.ConclusionDespite being implemented for more than a decade, Indonesia’s patient safety incident reporting system has not fully adhered to the WHO guidelines. There is a pressing need for the Indonesian Government to improve the system, by putting specific regulations and by creating a robust infrastructure at all levels to support the incident reporting.
The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe global impact. A range of campaigns and activities, including vaccines, are being implemented to counteract this pandemic. Using observational data, the goal of this scoping review is to identify adverse events connected with COVID-19 vaccinations. We conduct a scoping study and searched three databases from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 through June 2022. Based on our criteria and searched keywords, the review included eleven papers in total, with the majority of the studies being conducted in developed countries. The study populations varied and included general community populations, healthcare professionals, military forces, and patients with systemic lupus and cancer. This study includes vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Moderna. The COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events were classified into three types: local side effects, systemic side effects, and other side effects such as allergies. The adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are mild to moderate in severity, with no significant influence or interference in individual daily activities and no unique patterns in cause of death among vaccine-related deaths. According to the findings of these investigations, the COVID-19 vaccine is safe to administer and induces protection. It is vital to convey accurate information to the public about vaccination side effects, potential adverse responses, and the safety level of the vaccines supplied. Multiple strategies must be implemented at the individual, organizational, and population levels to eliminate vaccine hesitance. Future studies could investigate the vaccine's effect on people of various ages and medical conditions.
Objectives: Incident reporting is one of the tools used to improve patient safety that has been widely used in health facilities in many countries. Incident reporting systems provide functionality to collect, analyze, and disseminate lessons learned to the wider community, whether at the hospital or national level. The aim of this study was to compare the patient safety incident reporting systems of Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia to identify similarities, differences, and areas for improvement. 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.
(1) Background: A patient safety incident reporting system was introduced in Indonesian hospitals in 2006; however, under-reporting of patient safety incidents is evident. The government plays a vital role in the implementation of a national system. Therefore, this study focuses on how the Indonesian government has been undertaking its role in patient safety at provincial and city/district levels, including incident reporting according to the National Guideline for Hospital Patient Safety. (2) Methods: This study employed a qualitative approach with interviews of 16 participants from seven organizations. The data were managed using NVivo and thematically analyzed. (3) Results: The findings revealed several problems at the macro-, meso-, and micro-level as the government was weak in monitoring and evaluation. The District Health Office (DHO) and Provincial Health Office (PHO) were not involved in incident reporting, and there was a lack of government support for the hospitals. (4) Conclusions: The DHO and PHO have not carried out their roles related to patient safety as mentioned in the national guidelines. Lack of commitment to and priority of patient safety, the complexity of the bureaucratic structure, and a lack of systematic partnership and collaboration are problems that need to be addressed by systematic improvement. To ensure effective and efficient national outcomes, the three levels of government need to work more closely.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.