Nationwide survey on Japanese residents’ experience with and barriers to incident reporting

Masaru Kurihara; Takashi Watari; Jeffrey M. Rohde; Ashwin Gupta; Yasuharu Tokuda; Yoshimasa Nagao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278615

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 28, 2022
30 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Soham Bandyopadhyay, Editor PONE-D-22-21250Nationwide survey on Japanese residents’ experience with and barriers to incident reportingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Watari, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 29th October 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Soham Bandyopadhyay Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We also thank the team members of the specified non-profit corporation Japan Institute for Advancement of Medical Education Programme (JAMEP) for their cooperation." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This work was supported by the national academic research grant funds [JSPS KA-KENHI: 17K15745, 20H03913]. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: the manuscript is written in standard English. Statistical analysis also have been performed appropriately and rigorously and the results of the analysis were coherent with the discussion and conclusion part of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: The current study can be considered the improvement key of safety incident reporting systems, not ‎just in Japan, but also in other countries, taking into consideration the different healthcare systems ‎and the available resources. Inaddition, it is a nationwide survey that played an integral role in data ‎representation of the population in Japan, so applaud the initiative. ‎ There are a few points which may improve the present manuscript are enlisted below:‎ ‎1. Standardization in presenting data within the context where it is advisable to write the frequency ‎then the percentage in brackets as in lines 32, 33, 34 and throughout the manuscript.‎ ‎2. The manuscript needs a slight English proofreading for grammar, as the statement in the abstract ‎line 39 - 41 and line 58 use another conjunctive to clarify the content message. ‎ ‎3. Citation: the reference number should be added then the dot. as statement [1]. instead of ‎statement. [1] with standardization throughout the manuscript.‎ ‎4. References list need to be reviewed for Vancouver style, specifically the websites need to add the ‎access date.‎ ‎5. In the study design line 79 the author has mentioned the questionnaire was used from previous ‎study "We used a validated ‎ questionnaire from a previous study," but then in line 101 they stated it was developed by the two ‎authors, thus contradictory statements, while reviewing the previous cited studies [13] [15] and [16] ‎the authors TW was not one of the authors.‎ ‎6. Human Consideration: it is better to clarify how the consent was obtained from participants ‎‎(verbal/written)‎ ‎7. Abbreviations: in line 101 it is better to specify the authors' full names and not just their initials.‎ ‎8. Results: the data presentation in Table 1 is missing the female data raw. also data should be ‎presented more clearly as it is advisable to merge the title cells of the title characteristics table , and to ‎standardize data presentation as n= then (%) in the tables and within the context of the manuscript.‎ ‎9. there were no median neither mean analysis of the continuous variables despite what the authors ‎had mentioned in the Statistical analyses line 132-133.‎ ‎10. Fig 2 should be uploaded with a better resolution to be able to visualize statistical parameters more ‎clearly.‎ ‎11. Author contributions are missing, as per the publication guidelines for PLOS ONE.‎ ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Alaa Dayekh https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278615.r001
Revision 1
14 Oct 2022 Author Response October 14, 2022 Dear Editor: Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Nationwide survey on Japanese residents’ experience with and barriers to incident reporting.” We appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted. To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Takashi Watari, M.D, MHQS, MCTM, Ph.D. Reviewer 2: Comment 1: Standardization in presenting data within the context where it is advisable to write the frequency ‎then the percentage in brackets as in lines 32, 33, 34 and throughout the manuscript.‎ Response 1: Thank you for your observation. We agree with your comments and have revised the abstract as follows: Of 5810 respondents, the vast majority indicated they had encountered at least one safety incident in the past year (n=4449, 76.5%). However, only 2724 (46.9%) had submitted an incident report. Under-reporting (more safety incidents compared to the number of reports) was evident in 1523 (26.2%) respondents. The most frequently mentioned barrier to reporting an incident was the time required to file the report (n=2622, 45.1%). Comment 2: The manuscript needs a slight English proofreading for grammar, as the statement in the abstract ‎line 39 - 41 and line 58 use another conjunctive to clarify the content message. ‎ Response 2: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have revised them as follows: Line 39-41: Our study revealed that resident physicians in Japan commonly encounter patient safety incidents but under-report them. Line 58: Therefore, they are often the first to encounter safety incidents. Comment 3: Citation: the reference number should be added then the dot. as statement [1]. instead of ‎statement. [1] with standardization throughout the manuscript.‎ Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. I have placed the reference numbers before the punctuation and have ensured consistency throughout the manuscript. Comment 4: References list need to be reviewed for Vancouver style, specifically the websites need to add the ‎access date.‎ Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Accordingly, we have revised the reference style especially for the website references. Comment 5: In the study design line 79 the author has mentioned the questionnaire was used from previous ‎study "We used a validated ‎ questionnaire from a previous study," but then in line 101 they stated it was developed by the two ‎authors, thus contradictory statements, while reviewing the previous cited studies [13] [15] and [16] ‎the authors TW was not one of the authors. Response 5: We appreciate your helpful suggestions. It means that GM-ITE has been conducted and used in research. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript on page 5 as follows: “Both the original GM-ITE and the abovementioned questionnaire have been used in prior research studies.” (lines 85-86) Comment 6: Human Consideration: it is better to clarify how the consent was obtained from participants ‎‎(verbal/written).‎ Response 6: Thank you for the valuable feedback. The consent in this study was obtained from the participants ‎‎in the written form. Therefore, we revised the text on page 6 as follows: “Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the written form.” (lines 87-88) Comment 7: Abbreviations: in line 101 it is better to specify the authors' full names and not just their initials Response 7: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We revised the text on page 6 as follows: “The questionnaire was developed following consensus among two investigators (Masaru Kurihara and Takashi Watari) based on known incident reporting challenges in Japan (e.g., under-reporting and lack of knowledge on patient safety) [13].” (lines 100-102) Comment 8: Results: the data presentation in Table 1 is missing the female data raw. also data should be ‎presented more clearly as it is advisable to merge the title cells of the title characteristics table, and to ‎standardize data presentation as n= then (%) in the tables and within the context of the manuscript.‎ Response 8: We appreciate your helpful and valuable suggestions. We revised Table 1 as seen in pages 8-9. I have merged the required cells and added the data for female respondents. Moreover, the data has been presented as frequency and percentages in a consistent format. Comment 9: there were no median neither mean analysis of the continuous variables despite what the authors ‎had mentioned in the Statistical analyses line 132-133.‎ Response 9: Thank you for your keen observation. This sentence has been removed. Comment 10: Fig 2 should be uploaded with a better resolution to be able to visualize statistical parameters more ‎clearly.‎ Response 10: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have ensured that Fig 2 is clearer. Comment 11: Author contributions are missing, as per the publication guidelines for PLOS ONE. Response 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the information on author contributions at the end of the manuscript. “Author contributions M.K., T.W., Y.T, and Y.N. designed the study, main conceptual ideas, and proof outline. M.K, Y.T, and Y.N collected the data. T.W., J.R. and A.G. aided in interpreting the results and prepared the manuscript. T.W. and Y.T supervised the project. M.K., and T.W. wrote the manuscript with support from J.R. and A.G. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript. ” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278615.r002
21 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Soham Bandyopadhyay, Editor Nationwide survey on Japanese residents’ experience with and barriers to incident reporting PONE-D-22-21250R1 Dear Dr. Watari, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Soham Bandyopadhyay Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278615.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Soham Bandyopadhyay, Editor PONE-D-22-21250R1 Nationwide survey on Japanese residents’ experience with and barriers to incident reporting Dear Dr. Watari: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Soham Bandyopadhyay Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278615.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .