Since 2004, the Taiwan Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation has promoted “Patient Safety Week.” From 2020 onward, the promotion was extended to cover the whole week of Sept. 17.
This week marks the 20th year of the event. However, despite Taiwan’s globally acclaimed healthcare system and National Health Insurance, why have its hospitals not been able to establish a strong international reputation for patient safety? What has caused this?
Last year, Newsweek included Taiwan in its global ranking of the best hospitals for the first time.
That year, National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH) placed 249th in Newsweek’s top 250 hospitals.
This year, NTUH has dropped out of the list, while Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TVGH) placed 218th, making it the only Taiwanese hospital in the top 250.
Compared with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan lags far behind.
Seventeen South Korean hospitals are included in this year’s list, with the top-ranked hospital in 22nd place.
Malaysia, which had no ranking hospitals last year, now has two, with the highest ranked 223rd.
Thailand, like Taiwan, has only one hospital ranked, but at 130th, it far surpasses TVGH.
India has three hospitals included in this year’s list, and the highest-ranked hospital is in 113th place.
Are Taiwanese satisfied with this performance? Are they not curious about how and why NTUH fell out of the top 250?
Taiwan should have at least two hospitals in the list, right?
There are likely three reasons for this.
First, there is a lack of medical data transparency in Taiwan. Key data on medical incidents, hospital mortality rates, infection rates and readmission rates — critical indicators of patient safety — are hard to access.
This prevents a comprehensive assessment of the healthcare system’s performance in terms of patient safety and makes it difficult to compare with other countries.
Second, data on hospitals and specific departments are rarely made available. Given there is no strong government intervention, few medical institutions conduct self-assessments on internal patient safety issues.
Even if they do, the results are rarely disclosed, leaving patients and the public in the dark about how specific departments fare in areas such as surgical complications or infection control.
In other countries, including South Korea and Japan, hospital or department-specific patient safety data is often made transparent.
NTUH might be perceived as being excellent because of its name and its access to Taiwan’s vast medical resources, but do their departments lead in their respective fields? Do they maintain low preventable death rates?
Nobody knows.
Third, there is a lack of effective mechanisms for handling medical errors and providing compensation.
Taiwan’s medical compensation system is immature, often requiring lawsuits to resolve issues, meaning that many medical errors are underreported or unreported.
No-fault compensation systems, which reduce doctors’ incentive to hide mistakes and improve patient safety, have never been seriously considered.
If Taiwan wishes to enhance its international reputation in patient safety, the Ministry of Health and Welfare needs to focus on three areas.
First, shift from protecting doctors and hospitals to a patient-centered approach by making medical data publicly available, particularly data related to patient safety and medical incidents at all hospital levels.
This would increase domestic and international trust in Taiwan’s healthcare institutions and foster healthy competition between hospitals, which would help to improve outcomes.
Second, beyond boosting transparency, healthcare institutions must strengthen patient safety culture by encouraging staff to report errors, conducting regular safety training and establishing effective risk management systems.
Third, explore the feasibility of implementing a no-fault compensation system in conjunction with restorative justice to resolve medical disputes, encouraging hospitals to be more willing to disclose errors, thereby improving patient safety.
While the National Health Insurance system is internationally recognized for its accessibility and basic coverage, its patient safety data is not transparent, and therefore the healthcare system cannot establish a global reputation.
The accessibility and affordability of Taiwan’s healthcare system could appear deceptive if, behind the scenes, medical quality is not properly monitored, leading to unnecessary tests or overtreatment that wastes medical resources.
The lack of transparency in patient safety data means that the public cannot fully grasp the rate of medical errors or treatment complications, which could indicate inefficiencies or safety risks in a supposedly convenient system.
Although medical treatment accessibility might be high in Taiwan, if people experience medical errors or substandard care, these resources could end up being wasted on treating complications or repeated visits, imposing a greater burden on patients and the system as a whole.
Thus, the Ministry of Health and Welfare should end the era of inviolable medical authority in Taiwan.
If it truly wants to create a patient-centered healthcare system, it must combine no-fault compensation with transparent, hospital and department-specific patient safety data and evaluations.
Jou-Juo Chu is a professor in the Department of Labor Relations at National Chung-cheng University.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s