Development of a Risk Management Data Dashboard and Its Effects on Risk Data Utilization Competency of Risk Coordinators at Kalasin Hospital
Keywords:
Dashboard, Risk management, Incident data Patient safetyAbstract
This research and development (R&D) study, using a two-group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design, aimed to develop a risk management data dashboard and compare the effects of its use at Kalasin Hospital. It was conducted from February to June 2025. Sixty risk coordinators and staff responsible for risk data were allocated by hospital unit to an experimental group and a control group of 30 each. The experimental group used the dashboard with a workshop and follow-up for 8 weeks, whereas the control group used the usual reporting process. Data were analyzed using paired t-test, independent t-test, and chi-square test. The dashboard had five main screens. Experts rated its appropriateness at the highest level (4.58±0.43), and users rated its usability at 82.50±8.12 points. After the intervention, the experimental group had higher knowledge scores than the control group (17.30±1.80 vs 13.10±2.28; mean difference 4.20, 95% CI 3.14-5.26; p < .001), higher competency scores (26.47±2.55 vs 20.87±3.38; mean difference 5.60, 95% CI 4.05-7.15; p < .001), and a higher proportion reporting incidents within 24 hours (26/30, 86.67% vs 18/30, 60.00%; χ² p = .020; Fisher p = .039). The dashboard group had better outcomes; however, allocation was by hospital unit in a single hospital, so randomized multi-hospital studies are needed.
Downloads
References
1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 2000.
2. World Health Organization. Patient safety [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023 [cited 2025 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/patient-safety
3. World Health Organization. Global patient safety action plan 2021-2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
4. Mitchell I, Schuster A, Smith K, Pronovost P, Wu A. Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years after ‘To Err is Human’. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(2):92-9.
5. Healthcare Accreditation Institute (Public Organization). Hospital and healthcare standards. 5th ed. Nonthaburi: Healthcare Accreditation Institute; 2565. (in Thai)
6. Few S. Information dashboard design: the effective visual communication of data. Sebastopol (CA): O’Reilly Media; 2006.
7. Dowding D, Randell R, Gardner P, Fitzpatrick G, Dykes P, Favela J, et al. Dashboards for improving patient care: review of the literature. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(2):87-100.
8. Khairat S, Dukkipati A, Lauria HA, Bice T, Travers D, Carson SS. The impact of visualization dashboards on quality of care and clinician satisfaction: integrative literature review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2018;5(2):e22.
9. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319-40.
10. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst. 2007;24(3):45-77.
11. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N; TREND Group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):361-6.
12. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91.
13. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
14. Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold; 2000.
15. Brooke J. SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. p. 189-94.
16. Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ. 2001;323(7321):1123-4.
17. Anosri Ch. Results of development of community infectious disease surveillance network of Khamin Subdistrict, Mueang District, Kalasin Province. THSF [Internet]. 2026 Oct. 19 [cited 2026 Oct. 29];1(1):18-33. Available from: https://he05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/THSF/article/view/8481
18. Areeauey A, Leethongdissakul S. Development of a real-time operative system on RTOS dashboard for risk management in hospitals: a case study at Kalasin Hospital, Thailand. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2026;336:1700-4.
19. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD000259.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nexus of Thai Health Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles in this journal are copyrighted by the x may be read and used for academic purposes, such as teaching, research, or citation, with proper credit given to the author and the journal.use or modification of the articles is prohibited without permission.
statements expressed in the articles are solely the opinions of the authors.
authors are fully responsible for the content and accuracy of their articles.
other reuse or republication requires permission from the journal."
