IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0243583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in the perception of harm assessment among nurses in the patient safety classification system

Author

Listed:
  • Kwangmi Lee
  • Kyeongsuk Yoon
  • Byeongsook Yoon
  • Eunhee Shin

Abstract

Background: Precise harm assessment by the medical staff is very important in a patient safety event reporting system but there are differences in perception due to insufficiencies in education. Methods: We developed the survey tool consisting of nine patient safety incident scenarios to investigate the interrater agreement in the harm score assigning among nurses. The survey tool was distributed to 287 nurses working at two hospitals. Results: The overall kappa value for interrater agreement was k = 0.21 for harm and k = 0.28 for harm duration. In nine patient safety event scenarios, such as “mislabeled specimen” or “chest tube drain”, when the degree of harm was not clear, the assessments of harm and harm duration were somewhat dispersed. Conclusion: For the quality of the patient safety incident reporting system, the accurate harm assessment of medical personnel is highly important; however, results in this study indicated that theassessment of the degree of harm by Korean nurses was not standardized. The reason for this variability could be due to the lack of education that takes harm assessment into account. Therefore, training in harm assessment and the development of programs to support this training are both necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Kwangmi Lee & Kyeongsuk Yoon & Byeongsook Yoon & Eunhee Shin, 2020. "Differences in the perception of harm assessment among nurses in the patient safety classification system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243583
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243583
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243583&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0243583?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.