Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan

• Main Authors: Yosuke Hatakeyama, Shigeru Fujita, Shuhei Iida, Yoji Nagai, Yoshiko Shimamori, Junko Ayuzawa, Tomohiro Hirao, Ryo Onishi, Kanako Seto, Kunichika Matsumoto, Tomonori Hasegawa, Qiang Zeng
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497979/?tool=EBI

Various patient safety interventions have been implemented since the late 1990s, but their evaluation has been lacking. To obtain basic information for prioritizing patient safety interventions, this study aimed to extract high-priority interventions in Japan and to identify the factors that influence the setting of priority. Six perspectives (contribution, dissemination, impact, cost, urgency, and priority) on 42 patient safety interventions classified into 3 levels (system, organizational, and clinical) were evaluated by Japanese experts using the Delphi technique. We examined the relationships of the levels and the perspectives on interventions with the transition of the consensus state in rounds 1 and 3. After extracting the high-priority interventions, a chi-squared test was used to examine the relationship of the levels and the impact/cost ratio with high priority. Regression models were used to examine the influence of each perspective on priority. There was a significant relationship between the level of interventions and the transition of the consensus state (p = 0.033). System-level interventions had a low probability of achieving consensus. “Human resources interventions,” “professional education and training,” “medication management/reconciliation protocols,” “pay-for performance (P4P) schemes and financing for safety,” “digital technology solutions to improve safety,” and “hand hygiene initiatives” were extracted as high-priority interventions. The level and the impact/cost ratio of interventions had no significant relationships with high priority. In the regression model, dissemination and impact had an influence on priority (β = -0.628 and 0.941, respectively; adjusted R-squared = 0.646). The influence of impact and dissemination on the priority of interventions suggests that it is important to examine the dissemination degree and impact of interventions in each country for prioritizing interventions.