公众对美国初级保健中应报告的安全事件和风险的看法

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ERGONOMICS Journal of Safety Research Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2024.08.010
Frances Hardin-Fanning, Said Abusalem, Paul Clark
{"title":"公众对美国初级保健中应报告的安全事件和风险的看法","authors":"Frances Hardin-Fanning,&nbsp;Said Abusalem,&nbsp;Paul Clark","doi":"10.1016/j.jsr.2024.08.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><em>Introduction:</em> Patients may not feel responsible for reporting safety events, and social norms may prevent patients from questioning health care providers’ judgment. There is a paucity of research regarding public awareness of reportable safety events/risks. Educating the public about reporting is paramount in error prevention. Because more than 70% of errors (e.g., errors in diagnosis, communication errors, unsafe medication practices, and care fragmentation) occur in primary care settings, the purpose of this study was to explore public perceptions of when to report safety events/risks in these settings. <em>Method:</em> System-level primary and outpatient facility safety incident scenarios conducive to safety events/risk reporting were developed and administered via online survey methodology. Following completion of the scenario questions, participants were asked a single open-text item: “As you were reading the scenarios above, what did you think makes an event/risk ‘reportable’?” <em>Results:</em> At least one-third of participants responded incorrectly in 70% of the scenarios. The percentage of incorrect responses ranged from 5.2% to 62.3% with “unwitnessed falls” and “nursing scope of practice” queries incorrectly reported at 44.5% and 53.9%, respectively. Rationales for inappropriate events/risk reporting included “risk prediction at the management/system level,” “legal repercussions/protection (e.g., negligence, legal responsibility to patient),” “violations of scope of practice/professional expectations,” “degree of potential/actual lethality,” and “personnel errors.” <em>Conclusion:</em> This study revealed a gap between understanding why to report an event/risk and when to correctly report (or not report) an actual healthcare issue. <em>Practical applications:</em> Awareness of reasons for correctly reporting incidents and how correct reporting builds a culture of safety needs to be strengthened.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Safety Research","volume":"91 ","pages":"Pages 150-155"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public perceptions of reportable safety events and risks in United States primary care\",\"authors\":\"Frances Hardin-Fanning,&nbsp;Said Abusalem,&nbsp;Paul Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsr.2024.08.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><em>Introduction:</em> Patients may not feel responsible for reporting safety events, and social norms may prevent patients from questioning health care providers’ judgment. There is a paucity of research regarding public awareness of reportable safety events/risks. Educating the public about reporting is paramount in error prevention. Because more than 70% of errors (e.g., errors in diagnosis, communication errors, unsafe medication practices, and care fragmentation) occur in primary care settings, the purpose of this study was to explore public perceptions of when to report safety events/risks in these settings. <em>Method:</em> System-level primary and outpatient facility safety incident scenarios conducive to safety events/risk reporting were developed and administered via online survey methodology. Following completion of the scenario questions, participants were asked a single open-text item: “As you were reading the scenarios above, what did you think makes an event/risk ‘reportable’?” <em>Results:</em> At least one-third of participants responded incorrectly in 70% of the scenarios. The percentage of incorrect responses ranged from 5.2% to 62.3% with “unwitnessed falls” and “nursing scope of practice” queries incorrectly reported at 44.5% and 53.9%, respectively. Rationales for inappropriate events/risk reporting included “risk prediction at the management/system level,” “legal repercussions/protection (e.g., negligence, legal responsibility to patient),” “violations of scope of practice/professional expectations,” “degree of potential/actual lethality,” and “personnel errors.” <em>Conclusion:</em> This study revealed a gap between understanding why to report an event/risk and when to correctly report (or not report) an actual healthcare issue. <em>Practical applications:</em> Awareness of reasons for correctly reporting incidents and how correct reporting builds a culture of safety needs to be strengthened.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Safety Research\",\"volume\":\"91 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 150-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Safety Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524001051\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ERGONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Safety Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437524001051","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:患者可能不认为自己有责任报告安全事件,社会规范也可能阻止患者质疑医疗服务提供者的判断。有关公众对可报告安全事件/风险的认识的研究还很少。对公众进行报告教育对于预防差错至关重要。由于 70% 以上的错误(如诊断错误、沟通错误、不安全用药行为和护理分散)发生在初级医疗机构,本研究旨在探讨公众对何时报告这些机构中的安全事件/风险的看法。方法:通过在线调查方法,制定并实施了有利于安全事件/风险报告的系统级基层和门诊设施安全事件情景。在完成情景问题后,参与者会被问到一个开放文本问题:"当您阅读上述情景时,您认为是什么使事件/风险'可报告'?结果:在 70% 的情景问题中,至少有三分之一的参与者回答错误。错误回答的百分比从 5.2% 到 62.3% 不等,其中 "无人目击的跌倒 "和 "护理实践范围 "疑问的错误报告率分别为 44.5% 和 53.9%。不当事件/风险报告的理由包括 "管理/系统层面的风险预测"、"法律后果/保护(如疏忽、对患者的法律责任)"、"违反执业范围/专业期望"、"潜在/实际致命程度 "和 "人员失误"。结论本研究揭示了在理解为何报告事件/风险与何时正确报告(或不报告)实际医疗保健问题之间存在的差距。实际应用:需要加强对正确报告事件的原因以及正确报告如何建立安全文化的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Public perceptions of reportable safety events and risks in United States primary care

Introduction: Patients may not feel responsible for reporting safety events, and social norms may prevent patients from questioning health care providers’ judgment. There is a paucity of research regarding public awareness of reportable safety events/risks. Educating the public about reporting is paramount in error prevention. Because more than 70% of errors (e.g., errors in diagnosis, communication errors, unsafe medication practices, and care fragmentation) occur in primary care settings, the purpose of this study was to explore public perceptions of when to report safety events/risks in these settings. Method: System-level primary and outpatient facility safety incident scenarios conducive to safety events/risk reporting were developed and administered via online survey methodology. Following completion of the scenario questions, participants were asked a single open-text item: “As you were reading the scenarios above, what did you think makes an event/risk ‘reportable’?” Results: At least one-third of participants responded incorrectly in 70% of the scenarios. The percentage of incorrect responses ranged from 5.2% to 62.3% with “unwitnessed falls” and “nursing scope of practice” queries incorrectly reported at 44.5% and 53.9%, respectively. Rationales for inappropriate events/risk reporting included “risk prediction at the management/system level,” “legal repercussions/protection (e.g., negligence, legal responsibility to patient),” “violations of scope of practice/professional expectations,” “degree of potential/actual lethality,” and “personnel errors.” Conclusion: This study revealed a gap between understanding why to report an event/risk and when to correctly report (or not report) an actual healthcare issue. Practical applications: Awareness of reasons for correctly reporting incidents and how correct reporting builds a culture of safety needs to be strengthened.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
174
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Safety Research is an interdisciplinary publication that provides for the exchange of ideas and scientific evidence capturing studies through research in all areas of safety and health, including traffic, workplace, home, and community. This forum invites research using rigorous methodologies, encourages translational research, and engages the global scientific community through various partnerships (e.g., this outreach includes highlighting some of the latest findings from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
期刊最新文献
Trends in parcel delivery driver injury: Evidence from NEISS-Work Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed U.S. workers within the Construction sector, 2010–2019 Safety climate and fatigue have differential impacts on safety issues Great to use as a conversation starter: End user views on the acceptability and feasibility of a prototype decision aid for older drivers Investigating perspectives towards online content that promotes road safety: A qualitative study across three age groups
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1