Carlos Ramon Hölzing, Charlotte Meynhardt, Patrick Meybohm, Oliver Happel
{"title":"[分析德国大学医院事件报告系统的实施和使用:一项横断面在线调查的结果]。","authors":"Carlos Ramon Hölzing, Charlotte Meynhardt, Patrick Meybohm, Oliver Happel","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2025.03.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) are a central component for ensuring patient safety and an essential tool in risk management at German university hospitals. Despite their widespread use, there are still considerable challenges with regard to their practical application and effectiveness. The aim of this study is to analyze the dissemination and use of such systems and the associated barriers in order to identify potential for optimization.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among all German university hospitals (n = 38) between August and September 2024. Both structural and process-related variables were recorded, supplemented by selected aspects of the WHO CIRS self-assessment. The data was analyzed descriptively using SPSS® Statistics Version 29, supported by graphical representation using GrapPad Prism 9®.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 38 university hospitals contacted, 14 participated (36.8%). All participating university hospitals use internal critical incident reporting systems. 92.9% forward reports to cross-institutional systems, with 92.3% of the university hospitals forwarding less than 10% of the reports. Most university hospitals (11) evaluate ≥ 90% of incoming reports, ten hospitals do not use standardized analysis specifications. Feedback to reporting persons is provided in eight out of 14 university hospitals. The WHO self-assessment showed deficits in the implementation of personalized feedback and clear criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite the widespread use of critical incident reporting systems, the results reveal a clear optimization potential in the standardization of analysis processes, the prompt processing of reports and feedback mechanisms. The low transfer of reports to cross-institutional systems indicates structural and organizational barriers that need to be addressed. These findings provide important insights to support the further development of incident reporting systems and thus improve both patient safety and risk management.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":"195 ","pages":"Pages 28-35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyse der Implementierung und Nutzung von Fehlermeldesystemen in deutschen Universitätskliniken: Ergebnisse einer querschnittlichen Online-Befragung\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Ramon Hölzing, Charlotte Meynhardt, Patrick Meybohm, Oliver Happel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.zefq.2025.03.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) are a central component for ensuring patient safety and an essential tool in risk management at German university hospitals. Despite their widespread use, there are still considerable challenges with regard to their practical application and effectiveness. The aim of this study is to analyze the dissemination and use of such systems and the associated barriers in order to identify potential for optimization.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among all German university hospitals (n = 38) between August and September 2024. Both structural and process-related variables were recorded, supplemented by selected aspects of the WHO CIRS self-assessment. The data was analyzed descriptively using SPSS® Statistics Version 29, supported by graphical representation using GrapPad Prism 9®.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 38 university hospitals contacted, 14 participated (36.8%). All participating university hospitals use internal critical incident reporting systems. 92.9% forward reports to cross-institutional systems, with 92.3% of the university hospitals forwarding less than 10% of the reports. Most university hospitals (11) evaluate ≥ 90% of incoming reports, ten hospitals do not use standardized analysis specifications. Feedback to reporting persons is provided in eight out of 14 university hospitals. The WHO self-assessment showed deficits in the implementation of personalized feedback and clear criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite the widespread use of critical incident reporting systems, the results reveal a clear optimization potential in the standardization of analysis processes, the prompt processing of reports and feedback mechanisms. The low transfer of reports to cross-institutional systems indicates structural and organizational barriers that need to be addressed. These findings provide important insights to support the further development of incident reporting systems and thus improve both patient safety and risk management.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen\",\"volume\":\"195 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 28-35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921725001114\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921725001114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:关键事件报告系统(CIRS)是确保患者安全的核心组成部分,也是德国大学医院风险管理的重要工具。尽管它们被广泛使用,但在实际应用和有效性方面仍然存在相当大的挑战。这项研究的目的是分析这种系统的传播和使用以及有关的障碍,以便确定优化的潜力。方法:于2024年8 - 9月对德国所有大学医院(n = 38)进行横断面在线调查。记录了结构和过程相关的变量,并辅以世卫组织CIRS自我评估的选定方面。使用SPSS®Statistics Version 29对数据进行描述性分析,并使用graphpad Prism 9®进行图形表示支持。结果:在联系的38所大学医院中,有14所参与,占36.8%。所有参与的大学医院都使用内部关键事件报告系统。92.9%的医院将报告转发到跨机构系统,其中92.3%的大学医院转发的报告不到10%。大多数大学医院(11家)评估≥90%的传入报告,10家医院没有使用标准化分析规范。14所大学医院中的8所向报告人员提供反馈。世卫组织自我评估显示,在实施个性化反馈和明确标准方面存在缺陷。结论:尽管关键事件报告系统被广泛使用,但结果显示,在分析过程的标准化、报告的及时处理和反馈机制方面,存在明显的优化潜力。报告向跨机构系统的转递率低表明需要解决结构和组织上的障碍。这些发现为支持事件报告系统的进一步发展,从而改善患者安全和风险管理提供了重要的见解。
Analyse der Implementierung und Nutzung von Fehlermeldesystemen in deutschen Universitätskliniken: Ergebnisse einer querschnittlichen Online-Befragung
Background
Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) are a central component for ensuring patient safety and an essential tool in risk management at German university hospitals. Despite their widespread use, there are still considerable challenges with regard to their practical application and effectiveness. The aim of this study is to analyze the dissemination and use of such systems and the associated barriers in order to identify potential for optimization.
Methods
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among all German university hospitals (n = 38) between August and September 2024. Both structural and process-related variables were recorded, supplemented by selected aspects of the WHO CIRS self-assessment. The data was analyzed descriptively using SPSS® Statistics Version 29, supported by graphical representation using GrapPad Prism 9®.
Results
Of the 38 university hospitals contacted, 14 participated (36.8%). All participating university hospitals use internal critical incident reporting systems. 92.9% forward reports to cross-institutional systems, with 92.3% of the university hospitals forwarding less than 10% of the reports. Most university hospitals (11) evaluate ≥ 90% of incoming reports, ten hospitals do not use standardized analysis specifications. Feedback to reporting persons is provided in eight out of 14 university hospitals. The WHO self-assessment showed deficits in the implementation of personalized feedback and clear criteria.
Conclusion
Despite the widespread use of critical incident reporting systems, the results reveal a clear optimization potential in the standardization of analysis processes, the prompt processing of reports and feedback mechanisms. The low transfer of reports to cross-institutional systems indicates structural and organizational barriers that need to be addressed. These findings provide important insights to support the further development of incident reporting systems and thus improve both patient safety and risk management.