Background Task shifting and task sharing in health care are rapidly becoming more common as the shortage of physicians increases. However, research has not yet examined the changing roles of hospital administrative staff. This study clarified: (1) the adverse incidents caused by hospital administrative staff, and the direct and indirect impact of these incidents on patient care; and (2) the incidents that directly involved hospital administrative staff. Methods This study used case report data from the Japan Council for Quality Health care collected from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2019, including a total of 30,823 reports. In April 2020, only the 88 self-reported incidents by hospital administrative staff were downloaded, excluding incidents reported by those in medical and co-medical occupations. Data from three reports implicating pharmacists were rejected and the quantitative and textual data from the remaining 85 case reports were analyzed in terms of whether they impacted patient care directly or indirectly. Results Thirty-nine reports (45.9%) involved direct impact on patient care, while 46 (54.1%) involved indirect impact on patient care. Most incidents that directly impacted patient care involved administrative staff writing prescriptions on behalf of a doctor (n = 24, 61.5%); followed by errors related to system administration, information, and documentation (n = 7, 17.9%). Most reported errors that indirectly affected patient care were related to system administration, information, and documentation used by administrative staff (n = 22, 47.8%), or to reception (n = 9, 19.6%). Almost all errors occurred during weekdays. Most frequent incidents involved outpatients (n = 23, 27.1%), or occurred next to examination/operation rooms (n = 12, 14.1%). Further, a total of 14 cases (16.5%) involved patient misidentification. Conclusions Incidents involving hospital administrative staff, the most common of which are medication errors from incorrect prescriptions, can lead to severe consequences for patients. Given that administrative staff now form a part of medical treatment teams, improvements in patient care may require further submission and review of incident reports involving administrative staff.

With the shortage of medical staff, the birth rate decline, and aging populations in some countries, task shifting from specific medical staff to non-medical care workers in hospitals has been implemented as a short-term solution. Incident reporting reduces preventable patient errors, improves the quality of healthcare services, and contributes to patient safety. However, research focused on the expanding roles of non-medical staff who provide direct care for patients is lacking. The present study aimed to bridge this gap by examining reported incidents involving non-medical care workers and nursery teachers in hospitals in Japan. MethodologyA retrospective mixed-methods study was conducted using data published by the Japan Council for Quality Health Care. A total of 21,876 cases were reported between 2016 and 2020, and 97 out of 21,876 cases were analysed, after excluding incidents involving workers or staff other than care workers/nursery teachers. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the incidents, and textual data included in the incident reports were analysed by two registered nurses. ResultsThe occupations of the people involved were care worker (n=80, 82.5%) and nursery teacher (n=17, 17.5%). There were two reports of worker injuries (n=2, 2.1%), which were excluded. A total of 95 cases were included in the final analysis to examine the effects on patients. Among the remaining 95 cases, there were five severe patient incidents (death, n=2, 2.1%; cerebral hemorrhage, n=3, 3.2%), and the most frequent incident was bone fracture (n=64, 67.4%). Some patients had cognitive impairment (n=29, 30.5%) and osteoporosis (n=25, 26.3%). We divided the factors related to incident occurrence into software (procedures and protocols), environment (wards and theaters), and liveware (people, including care workers, nursery teachers, and patients). Regarding the reasons for the incidents, the percentages for the three factors were as follows: education/training 34.7% (n=33), in software; patient state 4.1% (n=39), in environment; and neglect to observe 45.3% (n=43), in liveware. ConclusionOur study involved a secondary analysis of published data, and the sample size was small. However, incident reports from care workers and nursery teachers working in hospitals included serious errors. The role of non-medical care staff in hospitals is broad and diverse, and has been shifting from direct care for patients with mild illnesses to direct care for patients with severe illnesses. An efficient clinical environment that ensures quality of care and service is lacking. By focusing on patient safety outcomes, policymakers and hospital teams should consider adjusting the working environment.

Background Patient safety is associated with patient outcomes. However, there is insufficient evidence of patient safety in the dental field. This study aimed to compare incidents reported by dentists and physicians, compare the type of errors made by them, and identify how dentists prevent dental errors. Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted using open data from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care database. A total of 6071 incident reports submitted for the period 2016–2020 were analyzed; the number of dentists’ incident reports was 144, and the number of physicians’ incident reports was 5927. Results The percentage of dental intern reporters was higher than that of medical intern reporters (dentists: n = 12, 8.3%; physicians: n = 180, 3.0%; p = 0.002). The percentage of reports by dentists was greater than that by physicians: wrong part of body treated (dentists: n = 26, 18.1%; physicians: n = 120, 2.0%; p < 0.001), leaving foreign matter in the body (dentists: n = 15, 10.4%; physicians: n = 182, 3.1%; p < 0.001), and accidental ingestion (dentists: n = 8, 5.6%; physicians: n = 8, 0.1%; p < 0.001), and aspiration of foreign body (dentists: n = 5, 3.4%; physicians: n = 33, 0.6%; p = 0.002). The percentage of each type of prevention method utilized was as follows: software 27.8% (n = 292), hardware (e.g., developing a new system) 2.1% (n = 22), environment (e.g., coordinating the activities of staff) 4.2% (n = 44), liveware (e.g., reviewing procedure, double checking, evaluating judgement calls made) 51.6% (n = 542), and liveware-liveware (e.g., developing adequate treatment plans, conducting appropriate postoperative evaluations, selecting appropriate equipment and adequately trained medical staff) 14.3% (n = 150). Conclusion Hardware and software and environment components accounted for a small percentage of the errors made, while the components of liveware and liveware-liveware errors were larger. Human error cannot be prevented by individual efforts alone; thus, a systematic and holistic approach needs to be developed by the medical community.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the amount of nursing services estimated under the classification of Nursing Need Degree is adequately evaluated for each Diagnostic Procedure Combination (DPC) reimbursement.Methods: A longitudinal cohort study design was employed to examine all 28,757 hospitalizations, except for those due to tuberculosis, in Hospital A in Japan between July 2008 and March 2010. We excluded the following patients from analysis: patients who were not applicable to the DPC system; patients who were hospitalized beyond the specified DPC period; and patients who were applicable to the specified hospital fee. We collected data from the administration system of medical business and Nursing Need Degree (NND). We calculated the mean of the hospital fee portion (i.e., fees for room and nursing services) per total number of nurses required and created a list of per-nurseday unit price for each DPC group, only if the number of patients included in the identical DPC group exceeded 20. We described about the number of assigned DPC codes, in such a way as to distribution of percent difference from the mean of hospital fee portion/total necessary number of nurses for each DPC group. In addition, we focused on the difference from the mean by 30%.Results: A significant correlation was found between the hospital fee portion and total number of nurses required under the DPC system. However, the distribution of percent differences among the mean of the hospital fee portion per total number of nurses required revealed that 39 of 179 DPC code groups were either underestimated or overestimated. The underestimated group included a number of obstetrics-and gynecology-related diseases, whereas the overestimated group included many non-surgical, cancer-related diseases. Conclusions:Our results significantly contribute to the identification of DPC codes that do not adequately reflect nursing services required under the present DPC payment system.