Objective To summarize and analyze the working experience of hospital performance evaluation and reporting system in America, so as to provide decision support to China on such work as establishing objective, scientific and effective hospital performance evaluation system, strengthening government’s supervision to health service, and promoting hospitals’ sound development.Methods American official websites and databases were searched to include relative policies, reports and documents on hospitals’ performance evaluation. Results Typical hospital performance evaluation and reporting system in America included National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR), Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CAHPS), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), Leapfrog Group Evaluation System and Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals. Conclusion The enlightenments of American performance performance evaluation systems to China include: a) more attention should be paid to performance evaluation; b) combined evaluation models and results application methods should be considered; c) comparatively scientific evaluation methods and comprehensive evaluation contents should be established.
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.
Objective To comprehensively compare the methods and tools for medical risk management and assessment in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and Taiwan region (hereafter shortened as “four countries and one region”), so as to provide evidence and recommendations for medical risk management policy in China. Methods The official websites of the healthcare risk management agencies in these four countries and one region were searched to collect materials concerning healthcare risk management and monitoring, such as laws, regulatory documents, research reports, reviews and evaluation forms, then the descriptive comparative analysis was performed on the methods and tools for risk management. Results a) A total of 146 documents were included in this study, including 2 laws, 17 regulatory documents, 41 guidelines, 37 reviews and 49 documents about general information; b) The United Kingdom applied the integrated risk management; Australia and Taiwan adopted the classical risk management process, including risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation and risk control, while the United States and Canada mainly chose the prospective failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for clinical risk management; c) The severity of clinical risk was divided into five grades in the United Kingdom and Australia, and six in Taiwan, respectively. The frequency of medical risk was divided into five grades with four grade responses in above two countries and one region; and d) There were almost the same processes and tools about Root Cause Analysis (RCA), but a little difference in the objects of analysis in these four countries and one region. Conclusion?There are three models of risk management with the same assessment tools in these four countries and one region: the prospective risk assessment, the retrospective assessment based on occurred incidents and the integrated risk management. Although the grading of risk is similar, the definition of grading is different in the United Kingdom, Australia and Taiwan. The methods and processes of analyses on the adverse events are almost the same in these four countries and one region.
Objective Healthcare risk has become a popular topic in medical research field all over the world. With the increasing of healthcare safety adverse events and medical conflict cases every year, publications about this topic have been rapidly increased in China, but research on the essentials and categories of healthcare risk are still lacked. This paper aims to summarize the essentials and categories of healthcare risk research systematically through analyzing domestic studies in healthcare risk over the past decade, so as to provide decision-making evidences and policy suggenstions on healthcare risk management in China. Methods We searched the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database of CNKI (1999-2010), in which those papers’ title containing the phrase of healthcare risk had been brought into our research, then we summerized the domestic concepts and contents in healthcare risk by essential analysis and frequency statistics. Results 255 papers were included, including 26 Class B papers (accounting for 10.20%), six Class C papers (accounting for 2.35%) and 223 Class D papers (accounting for 87.45%); but there were only 79 papers (accounting for 35.11% ) which had a clear definition of healthcare risk. From these papers, we found the essentials of healthcare risk included object, consequences, process and causes, and the research category of healthcare risk included prevention and treatment of risk, causes and effects of factors, risk sharing mechanisms, healthcare risk of special diseases, concept and characteristics, education and training, management method, risks of medical appliances, the species and object of healthcare risk, the category of healthcare risk, the research methods of healthcare risk etc. Conclusion At present, the study of healthcare risk focuses on the risk control and how to release risks from the results, besides, systematic studies are lacked, and the unified definition of healthcare risk has not been formed, Therefore, we recommend that systematic study of the healthcare risks should be strengthened, the definition of healthcare risk should be unified, and the early warning, monitoring, evaluating, and identifying methods should be positively developed, providing decision-making evidences to establish healthcare risk management system in China.
Objective To analyze the policy and guideline, the institutional management and the operation mechanism of ICU medical risk management in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and Taiwan, so as to provide evidence and recommendations for health care risk management policy in China. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library were searched to include the literatures such as the guideline documents and the research reports on ICU medical risk management in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and Taiwan; the institutional management and the operation mechanism of the risk management in the above four countries and one area were comprehensively analyzed, and especially the UK model was highly emphasized. Results A total of 31 literatures were included, including 1 guideline, 5 reviews, 2 investigative reports and 23 research documents. The United Kingdom guided the ICU risk management in forms of the standard and the guideline, formulated a clear tool of event classification and corresponding response mechanism. The United States learned from Australia’s experience and established the ICU safety reporting system; both of them regarded ICU as one part of the medical risk management and set up a special management column. Conclusion The ICU risk management with the independent report system in the United Kingdom is brought into the scope of national patient safety management, and is regarded as the relative complete system at present. In Australia and the USA, the national institutions are in charge of setting up the research projects of ICU risk management; the industry associations and the non-governmental organizations lead the risk research; and the experimental units popularize gradually after self-application.
Objective To compare administration of incidence reporting systems for healthcare risk management in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Taiwan, and to provide evidence and recommendations for healthcare 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 (1) A total of 142 documents were included in this study. The United States had the most relevant documents (68). (2) The type of incidents from reporting systems has expanded from medication errors and hospital-acquired infections to near-misses, and now includes all patient safety incidents. (3) The incidence-reporting systems can be grouped into two models: government-led and legal/regulatory/NGO-collaborative. (4) In two cases, reporting systems were established for specific incident types: One for death or serious injury events (the sentinel events database in Britain, SIRL), and one for healthcare-associated infections (NHSN in America). (5) Compared to the four countries, Taiwan’s system put more emphasis on public welfare, confidentiality, and information sharing. The contents of reporting there covered every aspect of risk management to create a more secure environment. Conclusion (1) Britain’s national reporting and learning system was representative of a government-led model; (2) The United States was the earliest country to have a reporting system, which included a limited range of incident types. Management of incidents became more reliable with increased application of laws, regulations, and guidances; (3) Both the Canadian and the Australian systems drew from the American experience and are still developing; (4) The Taiwanese system was comprehensive and is an instructional case.