Mohon untuk tidak mengupload file materi perkuliahan yang berbentuk pdf, ppt, doc, xls ke Blog Staff UMY -- Silahkan upload file-file tersebut ke E-Learning MaPSaF Tool – Arlina Dewi Blog

MaPSaF Tool

MaPSaF merefleksikan sikap, nilai dan perilaku terkait keselamatan pasien. Sebagai contoh misalnya bagaimana insiden keselamatan pasien diinvestigasi, pendidikan dan pelatihan staf tentang manajemen resiko dilaksanakan. Kerangka kerja dalam MaPSaF ini ditampilkan dalam bentuk matriks yang menggambarkan secara singkat tentang rumah sakit pada tiap tingkatan dari budaya keselamatan pasien yang dijabarkan dalam 10 aspek yang disusun oleh tim riset MaPSaF di University of Manchester yang terdiri dari psikolog, peneliti di bidang kesehatan dan profesional kesehatan lainnya. Dimensi budaya keselamatan pasien menurut MaPSaF terdiri atas 10 dimensi yaitu :

  1. Komitmen untuk perbaikan berkelanjutan yang menyeluruh
  2. Prioritas yang diberikan untuk keselamatan
  3. Kesalahan sistem dan tanggung jawab individual
  4. Perekaman insiden dan best practices
  5. Evaluasi dan best practices
  6. Pembelajaran dan perubahan perilaku yang efektif
  7. Komunikasi mengenai isu keselamatan
  8. Manajemen kepegawaian dan isu keselamatan
  9. Pendidikan dan pelatihan staf
  10. Kerjasama tim

Tingkat maturitas dalam budaya keselamatan menurut MaPSaF, yaitu:

  1. Pathological
  2. Reaktif
  3. Birokratis
  4. Proaktif
  5. Generatif

Berikut ini adalah penjabaran dari tingkat maturitas menurut MaPSaF (asli in English) dan dalam terjemahan Bahasa Indonesia

 

 

Dimension of patient safety culture

Dimensi budaya keselmatan pasien

A

(Pathological)

(Patolgis)

B

(Reactive)

(Reaktif)

C

(Bureaucratic)

(Kalkulatif)

D

(Proactive)

(Proaktif)

E

(Generative)

(Generatif)

Commitment to overall continuous improvement

Komitmen untuk perbaikan terus menerus secara keseluruhan

No resources are invested in the identification of problems or areas of good practice. If any auditing occurs it lacks structure and there is no response to what is discovered. Whatever protocols or policies exist are there to meet the organisation’s statutory requirements and are not used, reviewed or updated. Poor quality care is tolerated or ignored. This attitude is evident at Board level and throughout the organisation in the healthcare teams.

 

A continuous improvement framework is developed in response to specific directives or an imminent inspection visit. Auditing only occurs in response to specific incidents and national directives and does not reflect local needs. Little attempt is made to respond to any audit findings. The bare minimum of protocols and policies exist and these tend to be out-of-date and unused unless an incident occurs that triggers their review. Development of new protocols and policies occurs in response to incidents and complaints.

 

Frontline staff are not engaged in the improvement process and they see it as a management activity that is externally driven. Lots of auditing occurs but lacks an overall strategy linking with organisational or local needs. Staffs are overloaded with protocols and policies (which are regularly reviewed and updated) that are rarely implemented. Patients and the public may be involved in quality issues but this is lip service rather than real engagement.

 

There is a genuine desire and enthusiasm throughout the organisation for continuous improvement. It is recognised that continuous improvement is everyone’s responsibility and that the whole organisation, including patients and the public, need to be involved. Such organisations aim to be centres of excellence and compare their performance against that of others. Clinicians are involved in, and have ownership of, the auditing process which leads to continuous improvement. Protocols and policies are developed and reviewed by staff and are used as the basis for care and service provision. Patients and the public are formally involved in internal decisions–making it a patient centred service.

 

A culture of continuous improvement is embedded within the organisation and is integral to decision making at all levels. The organisation is a centre of excellence, continually assessing and comparing its performance against others both within and outside the health service. Teams design and conduct their own outcome focused audit programme, in collaboration with patients and the public. Staff are alert to potential safety risks. This means that over time the need for protocols and policies is reduced as evidence-based practice is second nature and patient safety is constantly on everyone’s mind. Patients and the public are involved in a routine, meaningful way with on-going contribution and feedback

 

Priority given to patient safety

Prioritas pada keselamatan

A low priority is given to safety. There are some risk management systems in place, such as strategies and committees, but nothing is actually delivered. This is an organisation unaware of their risks, believing that if a patient safety incident occurs, insurance schemes can be used to bail them out.

 

Safety becomes a priority once an incident occurs, but the rest of the time only lip service is paid to the issue apart from meeting legal requirements. There is little evidence of any implementation of a risk management strategy. Safety is only discussed by the Board in relation to specific incidents. Any measures that are taken are aimed at self-protection and not patient protection. In order to meet financial constraints or government set targets, risks are taken.

 

Safety has a fairly high priority and there are numerous systems (including those integrating the patient perspective) in place to protect it. However, these systems are not widely disseminated to staff or reviewed. They also tend to lack the flexibility to respond to unforeseen events and fail to capture the complexity of the issues involved. Responsibility for risk management is invested in a single individual who does not integrate it within the wider organisation. It is an imposed culture.

 

Safety is promoted throughout the organisation and staffs are actively involved in all safety issues and processes. Patients, the public and other organisations are also involved in risk management systems and their review. Measures taken are aimed at patient protection and not self-protection. Risks are proactively identified, using prospective risk assessments, and action is taken to manage them. There are clear accountability lines and while one individual takes the lead for patient safety in the organisation, it is a key part of all managers’ roles.

 

Safety is the top priority in the organisation, and responsibility for safety is seen as being part of everyone’s role including patients and the public. Staff constantly assess risks and look for potential improvements. Patient safety is a high profile issue throughout the organisation and is embedded in the activities of all staff, from the Board/senior managers through to healthcare teams who have day-to-day contact with patients, including support staff. Patient involvement in, and review of, patient safety issues is well established.

 

System errors and individual responsibility

Kesalahan sistem dan tanggung jawab personal

Incidents are seen as ‘bad luck’ and outside the organisation’s control, occurring as a result of staff errors or patient behaviour. There is a strong blame culture with individuals subjected to victimisation and disciplinary action.

 

The organisation sees itself as a victim of circumstances. Individuals are seen as the cause and the solution is retraining and punitive action. When incidents occur there is no attempt to support those involved, including the patients and their relatives.

 

There is a recognition that systems contribute to incidents and not just individuals. The organisation says that it has an open and fair culture but it is not perceived in that way by staff. Being open/open disclosure protocols have been written to ensure that staff and patients/carers receive support following an incident do exist, but they are not widely known about or used.

 

It is accepted that incidents are a combination of individual and system faults. The organisation has an open, fair and collaborative culture. Following a patient safety incident, a systems analysis is carried out and used to make decisions about the relative contribution of systems factors and the individual, e.g. the Incident Decision Tree. This process informs decisions about staff suspensions and so there is a consistent and fair approach to dealing with staff issues following incidents. The organisation is also open and honest with patients and/or their carers when a patient safety incident occurs that led to severe harm or death, but does not discuss all types of incidents. Organisational and system failures are noted and staff are also fully aware of their own personal accountability in relation to errors and of their empowerment to report them. Integrated systems enable patient safety incidents, complaints and litigation cases to be analysed together. Staff, patients and relatives are actively involved and supported from the time of the incident. The organisation has a high level of openness and trust. The organisation is also open and honest with patients and/or their carers about all types of patient safety incidents, irrespective of the level of harm caused.

 

Recording incidents and best practice

Mencatat insiden dan contoh yang baik

Ad hoc incident reporting systems are in place but the organisation is largely in ‘blissful ignorance’ unless serious incidents occur or solicitors’ letters are received. There is a high blame culture, with individuals subjected to victimisation and disciplinary action. No learning can occur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an embryonic incident reporting system, although staff are not encouraged to report incidents. Minimal data on the incidents is collected but not analysed. There is a blame culture, so staff are reluctant to report incidents. When incidents occur, there is no attempt to support any of those involved.

 

A centralised anonymous reporting system is in place with a lot of emphasis on form completion. Attempts are made to encourage staff and patients to report incidents (including those that were prevented or led to no harm) though staff do not feel safe and patients do not feel comfortable reporting them. The organisation considers other sources of safety information alongside incident reports (e.g. complaints and audits). Reporting of patient safety incidents at both a local and national level (e.g. the National Reporting and Learning System) is encouraged and they are seen as learning opportunities. Accessible, ‘staff and patient friendly’ reporting methods are used, allowing trends to be readily examined. Staff feel safe reporting all types of patient safety incidents, including those that were prevented. Staff, patients and/or their carers are supported from the moment of reporting.

 

It is second nature for staff to report patient safety incidents (including those that led to no harm or were prevented) as they have confidence

 

Evaluating incidents and best practice

Mengevaluasi insiden dan contoh yang baik

Incidents and complaints are ‘swept under the carpet’ if possible. Incidents are superficially investigated by a junior manager with the aim of ‘closing the book’ and ‘hiding any skeletons in the cupboard’. Information gathered from the investigation is stored but little action is taken apart from disciplinary action (‘public executions’) and attempts to manage the media. In this organisation there is little recognition of good safe practice.

 

 

 

 

 

Investigations are instigated with the aim of damage limitation for the organisation and apportioning individual blame. Investigations are cursory and focus

on a specific event and the actions of an individual. Quick-fix solutions are proposed that deal with the specific incident, but may not be instigated once the ‘heat is off’. Some investigations are not completed.

 

Senior managers are involved in the investigation, which is narrow and focuses on the individuals and systems surrounding the incident. There is a detailed procedure for the investigation process, which involves the completion of multiple forms – the investigation is conducted for its own sake and to placate patients/carers rather than examine root causes and support those involved. Staffs are motivated to review procedures or how the procedures are implemented, but learning is variable.

 

The organisation is open to inquiry and welcomes external involvement in investigations in order to gain an independent perspective. The staffs involved in incidents are involved in their investigation to identify root causes and interface issues. The aim of investigations is to learn from incidents and disseminate the findings widely. Data from incident reports are used to analyse trends, identify ‘hot spots’ and examine training implications. It is a forward-looking, open organisation. Patients are involved in the investigation process and their perceptions, experience and recommendations sought.

 

The organisation conducts both internal and external independent incident investigations that include the staff and patients involved. Incident investigations are seen as learning opportunities and focus upon improvement and include patient recommendations. The incident analysis process is systematically and regularly reviewed following consultation with all staff. Learning from best practice is shared across the organisation and nationally. It is a learning organisation as evidenced by a commitment to learn from incidents throughout all levels – from the Board/senior managers through to healthcare teams and support staff.

 

Learning and effecting change

Pembelajaran dan perubahan

No attempts are made to learn from incidents unless imposed by external bodies such as public enquiries. The aim after an incident is to ‘paper over the cracks’ and protect itself – the organisation considers that is has been successful when the media do not become aware of incidents. No changes are instigated after an incident apart from those directed at the individuals concerned.

 

 

 

 

 

Little, if any, organisational learning occurs and what does take place relates to the amount of disruption that senior staff have experienced. All learning is specific to the particular incident. Any changes instigated in the after math of an incident are not sustainable as they are knee-jerk reactions to perceived individual errors and are devised and imposed by senior managers. Consequently, similar incidents tend to recur.

 

Some systems are in place to facilitate organisational learning and this may include consideration of the patient perspective. The lessons learned are not disseminated throughout the organisation. Some enforced local changes relating directly to the specific incident are made. Committees and managers decide on any changes to be introduced, but lack of staff involvement leads to them not being integrated into working patterns. Patients are only involved so the organisation can prove to regulators that they have some commitment to patient and public involvement.

 

The organisation has a learning culture and processes exist to share learning, such as reflection and sharing patient perceptions. There is Board/senior management support for in-depth incident investigations, and changes instigated address underlying causes (e.g. systems factors). Staffs are actively involved in the process and there is a real commitment to sustainable change throughout the organisation. The organisation ‘scans the horizon’ for learning opportunities and is keen to learn from others’ experiences. Organisational learning following incidents is used in forward planning. It is an open, self-confident organisation.

 

It is a learning organisation. The organisation learns from internal and external information and experience and is committed to sharing this learning both within and outside the organisation. Patient safety incidents (including those that led to no harm or were prevented) are discussed in open forums where all staff are empowered to contribute. Both individual and organisational learning is evaluated. Improvements in practice occur without the trigger of an incident as the culture is one of continuous improvement. Patients play a key role in learning and contribute to subsequent change processes.

 

Communication about safety issues

Komunikasi tentang isu keselataman

 

 

Communication in general is poor; it comes from the top down and staffs are not able to speak to their managers about risk. Events are kept in-house and not talked about. The organisation is essentially closed. What communication there is, is negative, with a focus on blame. Patients are only given information which must be legally provided and only after exerting a lot of pressure on the organisation to give them access.

 

 

 

 

 

Communication in general is directive with managers issuing instructions. Staffs are only able to speak to their managers after something has gone wrong. Communication is ad hoc and restricted to those involved in a specific incident. The patient is given the information the organisation feels is appropriate in a one-way communication.

 

There is a communication strategy. Policies and procedures are in place, and lots of records are kept. There is a lot of information collected from staff, patients and other organisations but it is not effectively utilised. This leads to an information overload meaning that little is actually done with the information received by staff. A risk communication system is in place, but no-one checks whether it is working.

 

The communications system and record keeping are fully audited. There is communication across organisations facilitating meaningful benchmarking. All levels of staff are involved, and there are robust mechanisms for them to feedback to the organisation. Information is shared; there are regular briefing sessions where staffs are encouraged to set the agenda. Effective communication regarding safety issues is made with patient and public involvement groups.

 

Everybody communicates safety issues and learns from the experiences of others (good and bad). It is a transparent organisation and includes patient participation in risk management policy development. Innovative ideas are encouraged and staffs are empowered to implement them. This is an organisation that communicates good practice both externally and internally.

 

Personnel management and safety issues

Manajemen personil dan isu keselamatan

 

Staffs are seen just as bodies to fill posts. Recruitment and selection processes are rudimentary. The language used is negative and poor health and attendance records are seen as disciplinary matters. Staffs feel unsupported and see Personnel as ‘them’ and not ‘us’. There is a rudimentary staff policy, no structured HR development programme and no links with occupational health.

 

 

 

 

Job descriptions and staffing levels change only in response to problems, so there are good selection and retention policies in areas where the organisation has been vulnerable in the past. The atmosphere is of blame and punishment. Staff support is available, but is minimal and tokenistic. There is a very basic HR policy, but it is inflexible and developed in response to problems that have already been experienced.

 

Recruitment and retention procedures are in place and credentials are always checked. The language used to manage staff is generally formal and neutral and guided by policies and procedures. Mechanisms for staff support are governed by a lot of paperwork and policies. The procedures on appraisal, staff development and occupational health are there but are inflexibly applied, and so do not always achieve what they were designed for. These procedures are seen as a tool for management to control staff.

 

 

There is some commitment to matching individuals to posts. There are attempts to understand why poor performance occurs, and visible, flexible support systems exist tailored to the needs of the individual. Personnel management processes are reviewed and changes are made when necessary. There is genuine concern about staff health, and good systems of appraisal, monitoring and review. Patient/carer input on safety and staffing issues is actively sought. There is demonstrable evidence of proactive measures taken in some areas (for example by using the NPSA’s Incident Decision Tree following an incident).

 

Job specifications are designed to identify competencies using a Knowledge and Skills Framework. Reflection and review (both positive and negative) occur continuously and automatically. The organisation is committed to its staff, and everyone has confidence in the personnel management procedures that include mentorship and supervision. Patients and the public have meaningful involvement in the development and implementation of any policies related to safety and staffing issues. Personnel management is not a separate entity but an integral part of the organisation. Following a patient safety incident, a systems analysis is used (for example by using the NPSA’s Incident Decision Tree) to make decisions about the relative contribution of systems factors and the individual healthcare professional. This process informs decisions about staff suspensions and as such there is a consistent and fair approach to dealing with staff issues following incidents.

 

Staff education and training

Pendidikan dan pelatihan staf

Training has a low priority. The only training offered is that required by government. Staff education is seen by management as irritating, time consuming and costly. There are consequently no checks made on the quality or relevance of any education or training given with regards to career development of staff. Staffs are seen as already trained to do their job, so why would they need more training?

 

 

 

 

 

Training occurs where there have been specific problems and relates almost entirely to high risk areas where obvious gaps are filled. It is the responsibility of the individual to read, act upon and fund their own educational needs. Education and training focus on maximising income and covering the organisation’s back rather than the career development of the staff. There is no dedicated training budget and staff appraisals occur on an ad hoc basis.

 

The training programme reflects organisational needs so training is supported only if it benefits the organisation. No thought is given to actively involving patients in training. Basic Personal Development Plans are in place so everyone has their own file. However these are not very effective as they are not properly resourced or given priority. There are a large number of courses on offer, however not all of these are relevant to the career development of the staff expected to make use of them. Training is seen as the way to prevent mistakes and appraisals are focused around this.

 

There is an attempt to identify the training needs of the organisation, and of individuals, and to match them up. Educational opportunities are well planned and resourced and are available from and for all relevant agencies. Training and education are seen as integral to the career development of individuals and are linked directly to other organisational systems, such as incident reporting. Appraisals are staff centred and are built around the needs of the individual. Preliminary attempts to involve patients and the public in staff training are underway and the organisation is starting to learn lessons from their experience.

 

Individuals are empowered and motivated to undertake their own training needs analysis and negotiate their own training programme. Learning is a daily occurrence and does not happen solely in a classroom environment. Education is seen as being integral to the organisational culture. The approach to training and education is flexible and seen as a way of supporting staff in fulfilling their potential. Appraisals are initiated and managed by the staff themselves. Patients are involved in staff training to aid understanding of patient perceptions of risk and safety.

 

Team working

Kerjasama tim

Individuals mainly work in isolation but where there are teams they are uni-disciplinary and dysfunctional. There are tensions between the team members and a rigid hierarchical structure. They are more like a collection of people brought together under the direction of a nominal leader. Information is not shared between team members. The team operates secretively.

 

 

 

 

 

People only work as a team following a negative event and to respond to external demands. Individuals are not actually committed to the team. There is a clear hierarchy in every team, corresponding to the hierarchy of the organisation as a whole. There are multidisciplinary teams, but they have been told to work together, and only pay lip service to the ideals of team working. Information is cascaded to team members following an incident. The team operates defensively and newcomers are not welcomed.

 

Multidisciplinary teams are put together to respond to government policies, but there is no way of measuring how effective they are. Teamwork is seen by lower grades of staff as paying lip service to the idea of empowerment. Teams are given lots of written information about how they should function. There are official mechanisms for the sharing of ideas or information within and across teams but these are not used effectively. Teams operate behind the scenes and generally within a single organisation.

 

Teams are multidisciplinary and time and resources are devoted to team development processes. Team structure is fluid, with people taking up the role most appropriate for them at the time. There is evaluation of how effective the team is and changes are made when necessary. Teams are collaborative and adaptable. Teams are open and may involve members external to the organisation

 

Regular and evaluated team resource management training is offered to fully integrated multidisciplinary teams. Team membership is flexible with a horizontal structure. Different people make equally valued contributions when appropriate. Teams are about shared understanding and vision rather than geographical proximity. Team working is the accepted way in the organisation. Teams are totally open, involving members from diverse organisations, locally, nationally and even internationally.

 

 

Dari hasil terjemahan dan review oleh pakar maka terdapat 24 tema yang terbagi di masing-masing dimensi budaya keselamatan pasien. Tema tersebut menjelaskan masing-masing dekripsi di setiap tingkatan budaya keselamatan pasien.

 

Tabel 3. Pengembangan kuisioner MaPSaF

Aspek Generatif Proaktif Kalkulatif Reaktif Patologis
1.        Komitmen untuk perbaikan terus menerus secara keseluruhan
Komitmen untuk kualitas Sudah terbentuk budaya untuk terus melakukan perbaikan yang berdampak dalam pengambilan keputusan. Rumah sakit mempunyai keinginan dan antusias yang besar untuk terus melakukan perbaikan. Petugas yang berada di garis depan tidak dilibatkan dalam proses perbaikan. Perbaikan dilihat sebagai aktivitas manajemen semata. Perbaikan peningkatan mutu dibicarakan bila ada kasus. Tidak peduli dengan mutu pelayanan.
Inspection/Audit Tim Keselamatan Pasien merancang program audit yang melibatkan pasien dan keluarganya. Rumah sakit ingin memberikan mutu yang terbaik. Para dokter terlibat dalam proses audit guna terus melakukan perbaikan. Banyak melakukan audit tapi tidak ditindaklanjuti dengan serius. Audit dilakukan bila ada kasus yang menonjol saja. Tidak serius dalam melakukan audit kasus dan tidak ada tindak lanjutnya
SOP and policies Petugas menyadari akan setiap kemungkinan atau risiko yang akan terjadi sehingga justru mengurangi jumlah SOP karena keselamatan pasien sudah dipahami setiap orang. Pasien dan keluarga terlibat dalam memberikan saran. SOP, protokol dan kebijakan dibahas dan dilaksanakan sebagai dasar pelayanan. Pasien dan keluarga diajak terlibat dalam membuat keputusan pelayanan. Banyak SOP yang dibuat tetapi jarang dilaksanakan SOP dan protokol yang ada sudah usang dan diperbaharui bila ada kasus. Implementasi manajemen resiko sangat sedikit (SOP sangat sedikit)
2.        Prioritas pada keselamatan
Priority is given to patient safety Keselamatan pasien merupakan prioritas utama di RS.

 

Risiko keselamatan pasien sudah diidentifikasikan secara aktif.

 

Prioritas yang diberikan untuk keselamatan pasien sudah cukup baik yang ditunjukkan oleh sistem yang ada.

 

Prioritas yang diberikan untuk keselamatan pasien karena dipaksa oleh suatu aturan pemerintah.

 

Prioritas terhadap keselamatan pasien rendah.

 

Risk management system Seluruh staf konsisten dalam melaksanakan sistem manajemen resiko & peningkatan mutu berkelanjutan. Sistem manajemen resiko sudah tersosialisasi lebih luas pada organisasi RS & masyarakat. Sistem manajemen resiko belum tersosialisasi secara luas. Sistem manajemen resiko sudah diterapkan namun masih minimal (sebatas formalitas). Organisasi belum menyadari tentang pentingnya sistem manajemen resiko.
Implementation of patient safety Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien sudah melekat dengan seluruh aktivitas di RS. Semua petugas terlibat dalam keselamatan pasien Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien gagal untuk merespon kompleksitas masalah yang terjadi. Keselamatan pasien dibicarakan bila sudah ada insiden. Keselamatan pasien dilaksanakan untuk keamanan petugas, bukan untuk keselamatan pasien. Petugas kurang peduli terhadap keselamatan pasien, karena menurut mereka sudah ada jaminan asuransi.
3.        Kesalahan sistem dan tanggung jawab personal
Penyebab insiden Laporan insiden sudah menjadi “value” pada staff. Laporan insiden sudah berjalan, baik di tingkat organisasi maupun nasional. Insiden terjadi akibat kesalahan sistem, bukan hanya individu. Insiden terjadi akibat human error & solusinya adalah hukuman/sanksi. Insiden terjadi karena di luar kontrol organisasi akibat human error & pasien.
Budaya keselamatan pasien RS memiliki budaya yang terbuka & adil, petugas merasakan atmosfer budaya yang baik. Staff merasa aman untuk melaporkan insiden. Budaya terbuka dan adil, namun petugas belum merasakannya. Tidak ada dukungan untuk menyelesaikan masalah. Blame culture (budaya menyalahkan)
4.        Mencatat insiden dan contoh yang baik
Sistem pelaporan dan kegunaannya Insiden KP selalu dilaporkan dalam sistem yang benar. Proses pelaporan mudah dilakukan dan bersifat ramah. RS tidak rutin memakai laporan petugas tetapi laporan didapat dari sumber lain seperti audit dan form komplain pasien. Ada sistem pelaporan insiden tetapi data hanya dikumpulkam tetapi tidak dianalisis. Ada panitia khusus yang merekam insiden tetapi tidak berjalan sebagaimana  mestinya.
Apa yang petugas rasakan pada saat melaporkan insiden Petugas merasa aman untuk melaporkan insiden KP termasuk kasus near miss yang tidak menyebabkan cedera dan dapat dicegah. Staf merasa aman untuk melaporkan insiden karena dapat belajar dari masalah tersebut. Petugas melaporkan insiden walaupun merasa enggan. Petugas enggan untuk melaporkan insiden karena merasa tidak mendapatkan dukungan. Petugas merasa takut untuk melaporkan insiden.
5.        Mengevaluasi insiden dan contoh yang baik
Analisis data Analisis data keselamatan pasien di review secara sistematis dan reguler. Melakukan analisis insiden dengan analisis akar penyebab, tujuannya adalah untuk pembelajaran. Membuat statistik data insiden tetapi tidak dipergunakan. Data insiden yang dihimpun tidak dianalisis. . Sedapat mungkin insiden disembunyikan
Fokus investigasi Investigasi insiden KP melibatkan investigator internal & eksternal organisasi. Insiden KP dan near miss fokus pada perbaikan, selain itu juga melibatkan pasien. Investigasi insiden KP dan near miss berfokus pada perorangan dan lingkungan di sekitar kejadian saja. Investigasi KP hanya dilakukan pada kejadian tertentu saja. Insiden KP diinvestigasi sekedarnya saja, hanya untuk menutupi kesalahan.
Hasil invetigasi Hasil investigasi menghasilkan best practice dan dibagikan ke seluruh unit bahkan sampai tingkat nasional. Hasil investigasi dipakai untuk menganalisis trend dan mengidentifikasi penyebab terbanyak untuk terjadinya insiden dan melakukan pengujian terhadap pelaksanaan pelatihan. Hasil investigasi dipakai untuk pembahasan prosedur dan pelaksanaannya. Investigasi tidak dilanjutkan begitu masalah sudah “mendingin” Hasil investigasi hanya dipakai untuk memberikan sanksi.
6.        Pembelajaran dan perubahan
Belajar dari insiden keselamatan Belajar dari dalam maupun luar RS. Insiden KP dibicarakan terbuka di forum. Sudah ada budaya belajar dari insiden dan membagikan hasilnya untuk membuat perubahan. Sudah ada sistem pembelajaran tetapi tidak menyeluruh. Belajar hanya dari insiden tertentu saja. Belum ada pelajaran yang diambil dari insiden.
Siapa yang berperan dalam memutuskan adanya perubahan pasca insiden Insiden KP dibicarakan terbuka dan mendiskusikannya bersama petugas guna menghasilkan sutu perubahan. Petugas turut aktif dalam memutuskan perubahan setelah suatu insiden KP dan berkomitmen melaksanakannya. Komite Keselamatan Pasien dan manajer memutuskan perubahan tetapi kurang melibatkan peran serta petugas. Perubahan hanya dibuat oleh manajer senior. Tidak ada perubahan yang dibuat kecuali atas ketentuan hukum.
7.        Komunikasi tentang isu keselataman
Komunikasi tentang KP Ada keterbukan RS, termasuk melibatkan peran pasien dalam mengembangkan kebijakan manajemen resiko. Ada komunikasi dengan institusi lain yang dianggap lebih pakar dalam KP. Ada komunikasi internal tentang KP, kebijakan dan prosedur dibuat untuk hal tersebut. Komunikasi tentang KP tidak terencana dan terbatas pada siapa yang terlibat di dalam insiden Tidak ada komunikasi tentang KP.
Membagi informasi Ide inovatif yang meny

angkut KP dikomunikasikan dan jalur komunikai disediakan,

Infomasi tentang KP dibagikan pada sesi briefing sudah diagendakan oleh petugas. Banyak informasi tentang KP tetapi hanya sedikit yang dimengerti oleh petugas. Komunikasi tentang KP hanya berasal dari manajemen yang bersifat instruksi. Komunikasi sangat buruk.
Komunikasi tentang KP kepada pasien Tercipta komunikasi yang baik di dalam dan luar RS. Dilakukan komunikasi yang efektif tentang KP kepada pasien dan keluarga/pengunjung RS. Banyak informasi tentang KP diperoleh dari pasien tetapi tidak dipergunakan secara efektif. Komunikasi dengan pasien bersifat satu arah saja. Pasien mendapat informasi bila diatur secara hukum.
8.        Manajemen personil dan isu keselamatan
Apakah petugas merasa didukung? Manajemen kepegawaian melakukan refleksi dan pembahasan tentang kompetensi petugas. Melakukan supervisi dan mentoring. Kesehatan petugas diperhatikan. Manajemen merancang dukungan terhadap kebutuhan petugas. Kesehatan petugas diperhatikan. Prosedur manajemen kepegawaian merupakan cara untuk mengontrol petugas. Tupoksi petugas diperhatikan bila ada insiden. Petugas merasa tidak didukung karena manajemen tidak memperhatikan kesehatan petugas. Tidak ada peningkatan program SDM.
9.        Pendidikan dan pelatihan staf
Kebutuhan pelatihan Petugas diberikan kesempatan untuk mengambil pelatihan sesuai kebutuhan mereka. Ada upaya untuk mengidentifikasi pelatihan apa yang dibutuhkan petugas dan menyelaraskan dengan kebutuhan RS. Pelatihan diadakan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan RS. Pelatihan hanya dilakukan bila ada insiden. Petugas kurang memiliki ketrampilan. Tidak ada prioritas untuk pelatihan. Pelatihan dianggap sebagai kegiatan yang mengganggu, membuang waktu dan memakan biaya
Tujuan pelatihan Pelatihan dilihat sebagai cara untuk mendukung staf guna mengembangkan potensinya. Pelatihan dipandang sebagai kesatuan utuh dengan perkembangan pegawai dan terkait dengan sistem lain, misalnya pelaporan insiden. Fokus pelatihan adalah untuk meningkatkan pendapatan RS dan bukan untuk perkembangan karir petugas. Pelatihan dianggap untuk mencegah kesalahan. RS melihat petugas sudah terlatih dan siap bekerja. Mengapa masih membutuhkan pelatihan?
10.     Kerjasama tim
Struktur tim Tim bersifat fleksibel. Kontribusi dari bidang lain dihargai. Tim terdiri dari unsur multidisplin dengan struktur yang lebih fleksibel. Tim terdiri dari unsur multidisiplin untuk memenuhi kebijakan pemerintah. Petugas bekerja secara tim bila ada instruksi. Anggota tim KP bekerja sendiri-sendiri dan struktur hirarki yang kaku.
Seperti apa menjadi anggota tim Kerjasama tim terlihat memiliki kesamaan dalam pemahaman dan visi. Kolaborasi antar anggota tim berjalan dengan baik. Anggota tim terdiri dari unsur mmultidisplin tetapi tidak memiliki komitmen terhadap tim. Kerjasama tim hanya sebatas ucapan saja. Tim hanya sebagai kumpulan nama saja.
Arus informasi dan sharing Tim terbuka untuk membagi informasi dengan pihak lain yang berskala lokal, nasional maupun internasional.. Tim terbuka untuk membagikan informasi termasuk pada pihak luar. Mekanisme yang mengatur informasi sudah ada tetapi tidak berjalan efektif. Arus informasi berlanjut sesuai dengan jenjang hirarki sesuai kepentingan. Informasi dibagikan antar anggota tim, saling merahasiakan

 

 

Tabel 4. Revisi hasil uji reabilitas instrumen

Aspek

Generatif Proaktif Kalkulatif Reaktif Patologis
Prioritas yang diberikan untuk keselmatan pasien
Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien Semua petugas melaksanakan program keselamatan pasien yang mencakup seluruh aktivitas di RS Semua petugas terlibat dalam keselamatan pasien, namun belum sepenuhnya terimplementasikan pada aktivitas RS Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien gagal untuk merespon kompleksitas masalah yang terjadi. Keselamatan pasien dibicarakan bila sudah ada insiden. Keselamatan pasien dilaksanakan untuk keamanan petugas, bukan untuk keselamatan pasien. Petugas kurang peduli terhadap keselamatan pasien, karena menurut mereka sudah ada jaminan asuransi.
Kesalahan sistem dan tanggung jawab individu
Budaya keselamatan pasien RS memiliki budaya terbuka dan adil yang tinggi, RS sepenuhnya mendukung staf terhadap penyelesaian masalah/insiden yang terjadi Staf merasa aman ketika melaporkan insiden. RS memiliki budaya terbuka dan adil, namun staf belum sepenuhnya merasakannya. Staf tidak merasa aman ketika akan melaporkan insiden, dan tidak ada dukungan terhadap penyelesaian masalah. Terdapat budayamenyalahkan (blame culture).
Komunikasi tentang isu keselmatan pasien
Komunikasi tentang keselamatan pasien Setiap orang di RS berkomunikasi tentang isu keselamatan pasien dan belajar dari pengamalan satu sama lain. Ada komunikasi tentang keselamatan pasien antar organisasi sebagai tolak ukur yang bermakna. Ada komunikasi internal tentang keselamatan pasien, kebijakan dan prosedur dibuat untuk hal tersebut. Komunikasi tentang KP terbatas pada siapa yang terlibat di dalam insiden, hanya staf dan mananjemen RS saja. Tidak ada komunikasi tentang keselamatan pasien.

RS tertutup mengenai isu keselamtan pasien.

Kerjasama tim
Arus informasi dan sharing Tim terbuka sepenuhnya untuk membagi dengan pihak lain dari berbagai organisasi lokal, nasional, maupun internasional. Tim terbuka untuk membagikan informasi kepada pihak luar dengan beberapa batasan. Mekanisme yang mengatur komunikasi sudah ada, namun tidak berjalan efektif. Arus informasi mengalir pada anggota tim setelah terjadi insiden. Tim bersifat defensif. Informasi dibagikan antar anggota tim, namun masih saling merahasiakan.

 

  Sebelum Sesudah
Prioritas yang diberikan untuk keselamatan pasien

Tema 6. Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien

Generatif Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien sudah melekat dengan seluruh aktivitas di rumah sakit Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien sudah melekat dengan seluruh aktivitas di RS.
Proaktif Semua petugas terlibat dalam keselamatan pasien. Semua petugas terlibat dalam keselamatan pasien, tetapi belum sepenuhnya terimplementasikan di aktivitas rumah sakit
Bureaucratic Pelaksanaan keselamatan pasien gagal untuk merespon kompleksitas masalah yang terjadi Pelaksanaan keselmatan pasien menjadi tanggung jawab salah satu individu di organisasi.
Reaktif Keselamatan pasien dibicarakan bila sudah ada insiden. Keselamatan pasien dilaksanakan untuk keamanan petugas, bukan untuk keselamatan pasien. Keselamatan pasien dibicarakan bila sudah ada insiden. Keselamatan pasien dilaksanakan untuk keamanan petugas, bukan untuk keselamatan pasien.
Patologis Petugas kurang peduli terhadap keselamatan pasien, karena menurut mereka sudah ada jaminan asuransi. Petugas kurang peduli terhadap keselamatan pasien, karena menurut mereka sudah ada jaminan asuransi.
Kesalahan sistem dan tanggung jawab individu

Budaya keselamatan pasien

Generatif RS memiliki budaya yang terbuka & adil, petugas merasakan atmosfer budaya yang baik. RS memiliki budaya yang terbuka & adil, dan sepenuhnya mendukung staf dalam penyelesaian insiden.
Proaktif Staff merasa aman untuk melaporkan insiden. Staff merasa aman untuk melaporkan insiden.
Bureaucratic Budaya terbuka dan adil, namun petugas belum merasakannya. Budaya terbuka dan adil, namun petugas belum sepenuhnya merasakannya.
Reaktif Tidak ada dukungan untuk menyelesaikan masalah. Staf merasa tidak aman untuk melaporkan inside dan tidak ada dukungan untuk menyelesaikan masalah.
Patologis Blame culture (budaya menyalahkan) Blame culture (budaya menyalahkan) masih sangat dirasakan.
Komunikasi tentang isu keselmatan pasien

Komunikasi tentang keselamatan pasien

Generatif Tercipta komunikasi yang baik di dalam dan luar RS. Transparansi insiden keselamatan pasien dan melibatkan peran pasien dalam manjemen resiko.
Proaktif Dilakukan komunikasi yang efektif tentang KP kepada pasien dan keluarga/pengunjung RS. Komunikasi efektif tentang isu keselmatan pasien yang melibatkan pasien dan kelompok masyarakat.
Bureaucratic Banyak informasi tentang KP diperoleh dari pasien tetapi tidak dipergunakan secara efektif. Isu keselamatan pasien yang berasal dari pasien tidak dipergunkan dengan efektif.
Reaktif Komunikasi dengan pasien bersifat satu arah saja. Informasi isu keselamatan pasien dari pasien tidak ditindaklanjuti oleh pihak rumah sakit.
Patologis Pasien mendapat informasi bila diatur secara hukum. Pasien mendapat kesempatan komunikasi tentang insiden jika melibatkan hukum.
Kerjasama tim

Arus informasi dan sharing

Generatif Tim terbuka untuk membagi informasi dengan pihak lain yang berskala lokal, nasional maupun internasional. Tim terbuka sepenuhnya untuk membagi dengan pihak lain dari berbagai organisasi lokal, nasional, maupun internasional.
Proaktif Tim terbuka untuk membagikan informasi termasuk pada pihak luar. Tim terbuka untuk membagikan informasi kepada pihak luar dengan beberapa batasan.
Bureaucratic Mekanisme yang mengatur informasi sudah ada tetapi tidak berjalan efektif. Mekanisme yang mengatur komunikasi sudah ada, namun tidak berjalan efektif.
Reaktif Arus informasi berlanjut sesuai dengan jenjang hirarki sesuai kepentingan. Arus informasi mengalir pada anggota tim setelah terjadi insiden. Tim bersifat defensif.
Patologis Informasi dibagikan antar anggota tim, saling merahasiakan. Informasi dibagikan antar anggota tim, namun masih saling merahasiakan.

 

 

2 Comments on MaPSaF Tool

Leave a Reply

Alamat email Anda tidak akan dipublikasikan.


*