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.
AREAS COVERED: We searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ACM, Embase, IEEE and Ingenta. We explored various evaluation aspects of MD and EMR to gain a better understanding of their complex integration. We reviewed numerous risk management and assessment frameworks related to MD and EMR security aspects and mitigation controls and then identified their common evaluation aspects. Our review indicated that previous evaluation frameworks assessed MD and EMR independently. To address this gap, we proposed an evaluation framework based on the sociotechnical dimensions of health information systems and risk assessment approaches for MDs to evaluate MDI-EMR integratively.
EXPERT OPINION: The emergence of MDI-EMR cyber threats requires appropriate evaluation tools to ensure the safe development and application of MDI-EMR. Consequently, our proposed framework will continue to evolve through subsequent validations and refinements. This process aims to establish its applicability in informing stakeholders of the safety level and assessing its effectiveness in mitigating risks for future improvements.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the translated Indonesian version of the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture (NHSOPSC-INA).
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional survey conducted using NHSOPSC-INA. A total of 258 participants from 20 NH in Indonesia were engaged. Participants included NH managers, caregivers, administrative staff, nurses and support staff with at least junior high school education. The SPSS 23.0 was used for descriptive data analysis and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) estimation. The AMOS (version 22) was used to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the questionnaire's dimensional structure.
RESULTS: The NHSOPSC CFA test originally had 12 dimensions with 42 items and was modified to eight dimensions with 26 items in the Indonesian version. The deleted dimensions were 'Staffing' (4 items), 'Compliance with procedure' (3 items), 'Training and skills' (3 items), 'non-punitive response to mistakes' (4 items) and 'Organisational learning' (2 items). The subsequent analysis revealed an accepted model with 26 NHSOPSC-INA items (root mean square error of approximation = 0.091, comparative fit index = 0.815, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.793, CMIN = 798.488, df = 291, CMIN/Df = 2.74, GFI = 0.782, AGFI = 0.737, p