Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Difference in prioritization of patient safety interventions between experts and patient safety managers in Japan
Ryosuke Hayashi1, Yosuke Hatakeyama2, Ryo Onishi2
1Toho University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract:
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.
More Related Videos
09:52Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Obedience
Barriers to Effective Communication II
Cultural barriers:
Differences in values, beliefs, religion, knowledge, and tradition can significantly impact communication. Awareness of nonverbal cues is critical, especially when conversing with a patient from a different culture. What appears appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate in another.
Semantic barriers:
As a result of their tendency to use...
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Ethical Dilemmas II
Types of Reports III: Telephone and Verbal Reports
Here's an overview of each type:
Telephone Orders
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...