Objective Interpretation of the growing body of global literature on health care risk is compromised by a lack of common understanding and language. This series of articles aims to comprehensively compare laws and regulations, institutional management, and administration of incidence reporting systems on medical risk management in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Taiwan, so as to provide evidence and recommendations for health care risk management policy in China.
Methods ?We searched the official websites of the healthcare risk management agencies of the four countries and one district for laws, regulatory documents, research reports, reviews and evaluation forms concerned with healthcare risk management and assessment. Descriptive comparative analysis was performed on relevant documents.
Results ?A total of 146 documents were included in this study, including 2 laws (1.4%), 17 policy documents (11.6%), 41 guidance documents (28.1%), 37 reviews (25.3%), and 49 documents giving general information (33.6%). The United States government implemented one law and one rule of patient safety management, while the United Kingdom and Australia each issued professional guidances on patient safety improvement. The four countries implemented patient safety management policy on four different levels: national, state/province/district, hospital, and non-governmental organization.
Conclusion ?The four countries and one district adopted four levels of patient safety management, and the administration modes can be divided into an “NGO-led mode” represented by the United States and Canada and a “government-led mode” represented by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Taiwan.
Citation： SUN Niuyun,WANG Li,ZHOU Jun,YUAN Qiang,ZHANG Zongjiu,LI Youping,LIANG Minghui,CHENG Lan,GAO Guangming,CUI Xiaohua. Comparative Analyses of Institutions, Regulations and Administration on Healthcare Risk Management in United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and Taiwan District△. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011, 11(2): 117-124. doi: Copy