The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe global impact. A range of campaigns and activities, including vaccines, are being implemented to counteract this pandemic. Using observational data, the goal of this scoping review is to identify adverse events connected with COVID-19 vaccinations. We conduct a scoping study and searched three databases from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 through June 2022. Based on our criteria and searched keywords, the review included eleven papers in total, with the majority of the studies being conducted in developed countries. The study populations varied and included general community populations, healthcare professionals, military forces, and patients with systemic lupus and cancer. This study includes vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Moderna. The COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events were classified into three types: local side effects, systemic side effects, and other side effects such as allergies. The adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are mild to moderate in severity, with no significant influence or interference in individual daily activities and no unique patterns in cause of death among vaccine-related deaths. According to the findings of these investigations, the COVID-19 vaccine is safe to administer and induces protection. It is vital to convey accurate information to the public about vaccination side effects, potential adverse responses, and the safety level of the vaccines supplied. Multiple strategies must be implemented at the individual, organizational, and population levels to eliminate vaccine hesitance. Future studies could investigate the vaccine’s effect on people of various ages and medical conditions.

Purpose: This study investigated the practical and cultural barriers of reporting patient safety incidents in three accredited public hospitals in East Java, Indonesia. Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach using a convergent parallel design. We surveyed 1121 health workers and interviewed 27 managerial staff members from the sampled hospitals. A chi-square analysis was performed to evaluate differences in demographic factors, barriers to reporting, and practices of reporting between those who had reported an incident and those who had witnessed an incident but had not reported it. NVivo 11 software was used to perform the qualitative data analysis. Results: This study had a 76.53% response rate. The quantitative evaluation identified significant differences in professions and work units and in participation in quality and safety training between the reporting group and the non-reporting group. The analysis of practical barriers displayed significant differences between the groups with the following responses: “did not know how to report,” “did not know where to report,” and “lack of feedback”. For cultural barriers, a significant difference was shown only for the response “did not want conflict.” In the qualitative assessment, most of the interview participants reported lack of knowledge and lack of socialization or training as practical barriers in reporting incidents. Furthermore, reluctance and fear to report were mentioned as cultural barriers by most of the interviewees. Conclusion: Because there were conflicting findings in the barriers of reporting incidents, these barriers must be identified, discussed, and resolved by health workers and their managers or supervisors to improve incident reporting. Managers must foster open communication and build positive connections with health workers. Further research is necessary to focus on possible ways of addressing the barriers to reporting.

Background: Incident reporting is widely acknowledged as one of the ways of improving patient safety and has been implemented in Indonesia for more than ten years. However, there was no significant increase in the number of reported incidents nationally. The study described in this paper aimed at assessing the extent to which Indonesia’s patient safety incident reporting system has adhered to the World Health Organization (WHO) characteristics for successful reporting. Methods: We interviewed officials from 16 organizations at national, provincial and district or city levels in Indonesia. We reviewed several policies, guidelines and regulations pertinent to incident reporting in Indonesia and examined whether the WHO characteristics were covered in these documents. We used NVivo version 9 to manage the interview data and applied thematic analysis to organize our findings. Results: Our study found that there was an increased need for a non-punitive system, confidentiality, expert-analysis and timeliness of reporting, system-orientation and responsiveness. The existing guidelines, policies and regulations in Indonesia, to a large extent, have not satisfied all the required WHO characteristics of incident reporting. Furthermore, awareness and understanding of the reporting system amongst officials at almost all levels were lacking. Conclusion: Despite being implemented for more than a decade, Indonesia’s patient safety incident reporting system has not fully adhered to the WHO guidelines. There is a pressing need for the Indonesian Government to improve the system, by putting specific regulations and by creating a robust infrastructure at all levels to support the incident reporting.

Background: Understanding the causes of patient safety incidents is essential for improving patient safety; therefore, reporting and analysis of these incidents is a key imperative. Despite its implemention more than 15 years ago, the institutionalization of incident reporting in Indonesian hospitals is far from satisfactory. The aim of this study was to analyze the factors responsible for under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesian public hospitals from the perspectives of leaders of hospitals, government departments, and independent institutions. Methods: A qualitative research methodology was adopted for this study using semi-structured interviews of key informants. 25 participants working at nine organizations (government departments, independent institutions, and public hospitals) were interviewed. The interview transcripts were analyzed using a deductive analytic approach. Nvivo 10 was used to for data processing prior to thematic analysis. Results: The key factors contributing to the under-reporting of patient safety incidents were categorized as hospital related and nonhospital related (government or independent agency). The hospital-related factors were: lack of understanding, knowledge, and responsibility for reporting; lack of leadership and institutional culture of reporting incidents; perception of reporting as an additional burden. The nonhospital-related factors were: lack of feedback and training; lack of confidentiality mechanisms in the system; absence of policy safeguards to prevent any punitive measures against the reporting hospital; lack of leadership. Conclusion: Our study identified factors contributing to the under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesia. The lack of government support and absence of political will to improve patient safety incident reporting appear to be the root causes of under-reporting. Our findings call for concerted efforts involving government, independent agencies, hospitals, and other stakeholders for instituting reforms in the patient safety incident reporting system.

Objective: Chronic disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality on a global scale. Recent use of intelligent home environments for remote health monitoring has allowed patients to feel safe at home. By encouraging patient engagement and, if necessary, care delivery, smart home environments may be a useful method for managing chronic diseases at home. The purpose of this study is to synthesize the evidence on the usage of smart healthcare in the home for chronic illness management. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Methodology and searched three databases from 2017 to 2022 for original research papers on smart healthcare, smart home technology, home-based technology, home monitoring, and physiological monitoring for chronic illness management. We did a descriptive study on the pertinent data we collected, as well as an analysis of whether the devices met its objectives. Results: The final analysis included nine papers, the majority of which were randomized controlled trials. All of the studies were carried out in developed countries. The gadgets or smart healthcare in these studies are categorized based on the technology used and the outcomes measured. Respiratory, weight, and ballistocardiograph measurements, as well as changes in questionnaire ratings, hospitalization, activity monitoring, device acceptability, medication adherence, exercise capacity, and body function, were all measured. Conclusion: Smart healthcare applications boost health by monitoring health and wellness, recording physical activity and rehabilitation, and improving overall quality of life. Not all smart home applications, however, served their intended purpose. As a result, more research into the efficacy of smart healthcare is needed to improve its application for chronic illness treatment.

Objectives: Incident reporting is one of the tools used to improve patient safety that has been widely used in health facilities in many countries. Incident reporting systems provide functionality to collect, analyze, and disseminate lessons learned to the wider community, whether at the hospital or national level. The aim of this study was to compare the patient safety incident reporting systems of Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia to identify similarities, differences, and areas for improvement. Methods: We searched the official Web sites and homepages of the responsible leading patient safety agencies of the three countries. We reviewed all publicly available guidelines, regulatory documents, government reports that included policies, guidelines, strategy papers, reports, evaluation programs, as well as scientific articles and gray literature related to the incident reporting system. We used the World Health Organization components of patient safety reporting system as the guidelines for comparison and analyzed the documents using descriptive comparative analysis. Results: Taiwan had the most incidents reported, followed by Malaysia and Indonesia. Taiwan Patient Safety Reporting (TPR) and the Malaysian Reporting and Learning System had similar attributes and followed the World Health Organization components for incident reporting. We found differences between the Indonesian system and both of TPR and the Malaysian system. Indonesia did not have an external reporting deadline, analysis and learning were conducted at the national level, and there was a lack of transparency and public access to data and reports. All systems need to establish a clear and structured incident reporting evaluation framework if they are to be successful. Conclusions: Compared with TPR and Malaysian system, the Indonesian patient safety incident reporting system seemed to be ineffective because it failed to acquire adequate national incident reporting data and lacked transparency; these deficiencies inhibited learning at the national level. We suggest further research on the implementation at the hospital level to see how far national guidelines and policy have been implemented in each country.