Safety climate and its relationship with furniture companies’ safety performance and workers’ risk acceptance

This study aims to analyse the relationship between safety climate and the level of risk acceptance, as well as its relationship with workplace safety performance. The sample includes 14 companies and 403 workers. The safety climate assessment was performed by the application of a Safety Climate in Wood Industries questionnaire and safety performance was assessed with a checklist. Judgements about risk acceptance were measured through questionnaires together with four other variables: trust, risk perception, benefit perception and emotion. Safety climate was found to be correlated with workgroup safety performance, and it also plays an important role in workers’ risk acceptance levels. Risk acceptance tends to be lower when safety climate scores of workgroups are high, and subsequently, their safety performance is better. These findings seem to be relevant, as they provide Occupational, Safety and Health practitioners with a better understanding of workers’ risk acceptance levels and of the differences among workgroups.

Multilevel model of safety climate for furniture industries

BACKGROUND: Furniture companies can analyze their safety status using quantitative measures. However, the data needed are not always available and the number of accidents is under-reported. Safety climate scales may be an alternative. However, there are no validated Portuguese scales that account for the specific attributes of the furniture sector. OBJECTIVE: The current study aims to develop and validate an instrument that uses a multilevel structure to measure the safety climate of the Portuguese furniture industry. METHODS: The Safety Climate in Wood Industries (SCWI) model was developed and applied to the safety climate analysis using three different scales: organizational, group and individual. A multilevel exploratory factor analysis was performed to analyze the factorial structure. The studied companies’ safety conditions were also analyzed. RESULTS: Different factorial structures were found between and within levels. In general, the results show the presence of a group-level safety climate. The scores of safety climates are directly and positively related to companies’ safety conditions; the organizational scale is the one that best reflects the actual safety conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The SCWI instrument allows for the identification of different safety climates in groups that comprise the same furniture company and it seems to reflect those groups’ safety conditions. The study also demonstrates the need for a multilevel analysis of the studied instrument.

Multilevel model of safety climate for furniture industries

BACKGROUND: Furniture companies can analyze their safety status using quantitative measures. However, the data needed are not always available and the number of accidents is under-reported. Safety climate scales may be an alternative. However, there are no validated Portuguese scales that account for the specific attributes of the furniture sector. OBJECTIVE: The current study aims to develop and validate an instrument that uses a multilevel structure to measure the safety climate of the Portuguese furniture industry. METHODS: The Safety Climate in Wood Industries (SCWI) model was developed and applied to the safety climate analysis using three different scales: organizational, group and individual. A multilevel exploratory factor analysis was performed to analyze the factorial structure. The studied companies’ safety conditions were also analyzed. RESULTS: Different factorial structures were found between and within levels. In general, the results show the presence of a group-level safety climate. The scores of safety climates are directly and positively related to companies’ safety conditions; the organizational scale is the one that best reflects the actual safety conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The SCWI instrument allows for the identification of different safety climates in groups that comprise the same furniture company and it seems to reflect those groups’ safety conditions. The study also demonstrates the need for a multilevel analysis of the studied instrument.

Safety climate and its relationship with furniture companies’ safety performance and workers’ risk acceptance

This study aims to analyse the relationship between safety climate and the level of risk acceptance, as well as its relationship with workplace safety performance. The sample includes 14 companies and 403 workers. The safety climate assessment was performed by the application of a Safety Climate in Wood Industries questionnaire and safety performance was assessed with a checklist. Judgements about risk acceptance were measured through questionnaires together with four other variables: trust, risk perception, benefit perception and emotion. Safety climate was found to be correlated with workgroup safety performance, and it also plays an important role in workers’ risk acceptance levels. Risk acceptance tends to be lower when safety climate scores of workgroups are high, and subsequently, their safety performance is better. These findings seem to be relevant, as they provide Occupational, Safety and Health practitioners with a better understanding of workers’ risk acceptance levels and of the differences among workgroups.

The effects of safety climate and trust on job satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been a frequently studied concept in organizational behavior. Past research has shown that trust in top management is an important factor influencing job satisfaction. To date, little attention has been paid to safety climate perceptions as a possible predictor of job satisfaction. In our study we investigated the direct and interactive effects of trust in top management and individual-level perceptions of safety climate in predicting job satisfaction. The findings of this study point to the importance of positive perceptions of safety climate on employees' job satisfaction when trust in top management is low.

Organizational safety climate and adherence to standard precautions among dentists

Objective: Check the perception of dentists about safety climate at work in relation to adherence to standard precautions.Methods: It is a quantitative, cross-sectional study conducted through the application of the Safety Climate Scale to a population of 224 dentists who worked in units of primary health care in six municipalities of Parana.Results: The total score of 3.43 (SD = 0.88) reveals that dentists have a poor perception of the incentives and organizational support for adopting standard precautions.Conclusion: Unsatisfactory safety climate, where the perception of dentists about safety in their work environment is deficient, demonstrating fragile management actions of support to safety, lack of a training program in occupational health and deficient feedback to favor the adoption of safe practices.

Safety climate and its association with office type and team involvement in primary care

OBJECTIVE To assess differences in safety climate perceptions between occupational groups and types of office organization in primary care. METHODS Primary care physicians and nurses working in outpatient offices were surveyed about safety climate. Explorative factor analysis was performed to determine the factorial structure. Differences in mean climate scores between staff groups and types of office were tested. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine predictors for a 'favorable' safety climate. RESULTS 630 individuals returned the survey (response rate, 50%). Differences between occupational groups were observed in the means of the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (physician 4.0 vs. nurse 3.8, P < 0.001). Medical centers scored higher compared with single-handed offices and joint practices on the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (4.3 vs. 3.8 vs. 3.9, P < 0.001) but less favorable on the 'rules and risks'-scale (3.5 vs. 3.9 vs. 3.7, P < 0.001). Characteristics on the individual and office level predicted favorable 'team-based error prevention'-scores. Physicians (OR = 0.4, P = 0.01) and less experienced staff (OR 0.52, P = 0.04) were less likely to provide favorable scores. Individuals working at medical centers were more likely to provide positive scores compared with single-handed offices (OR 3.33, P = 0.001). The largest positive effect was associated with at least monthly team meetings (OR 6.2, P < 0.001) and participation in quality circles (OR 4.49, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Results indicate that frequent quality circle participation and team meetings involving all team members are effective ways to strengthen safety climate in terms of team-based strategies and activities in error prevention.

Survey of safety climate in public hospitals in Costa Rica in 1997

In response to growing concern for occupational health and safety in the public hospital system in Costa Rica, a research program was initiated in 1995 to evaluate and improve the safety climate in the national healthcare system through regional training programs, and to develop the capacity of the occupational health commissions in these settings to improve the identification and mitigation of workplace risks. A cross-sectional survey of 1000 hospital-based healthcare workers was conducted in 1997 to collect baseline data that will be used to develop appropriate worker training programs in occupational health. The objectives of this survey were to: (1) describe the safety climate within the national hospital system, (2) identify factors associated with safety climate focusing on individual and organizational variables, and (3) to evaluate the relationship between safety climate and workplace injuries and safety practices of employees. Individual factors evaluated included the demographic variables of age, gender, education and profession. Organizational factors evaluated included training, psychosocial work environment, job-task demands, availability of protective equipment and administrative controls. Work-related injuries and safety practices of employees included the type and frequency of injuries experienced and reported, and compliance with established safety practices. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that training and administrative controls were the two most significant predictors of safety climate. None of the demographic variables were significant predictors of safety climate. Safety climate was inversely and significantly associated with workplace injuries and positively and significantly associated with safety practices. These results suggest that training and administrative controls should be included in future training efforts and that improving safety climate will decrease workplace injuries and increase safety practices. ^

Safety climate in Swiss hospital units: Swiss version of the Safety Climate Survey

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Safety climate measurements are a broadly used element of improvement initiatives. In order to provide a sound and easy-to-administer instrument for the use in Swiss hospitals, we translated the Safety Climate Survey into German and French. METHODS After translating the Safety Climate Survey into French and German, a cross-sectional survey study was conducted with health care professionals (HCPs) in operating room (OR) teams and on OR-related wards in 10 Swiss hospitals. Validity of the instrument was examined by means of Cronbach's alpha and missing rates of the single items. Item-descriptive statistics group differences and percentage of 'problematic responses' (PPR) were calculated. RESULTS 3153 HCPs completed the survey (response rate: 63.4%). 1308 individuals were excluded from the analyses because of a profession other than doctor or nurse or invalid answers (n = 1845; nurses = 1321, doctors = 523). Internal consistency of the translated Safety Climate Survey was good (Cronbach's alpha G erman  = 0.86; Cronbach's alpha F rench  = 0.84). Missing rates at item level were rather low (0.23-4.3%). We found significant group differences in safety climate values regarding profession, managerial function, work area and time spent in direct patient care. At item level, 14 out of 21 items showed a PPR higher than 10%. CONCLUSIONS Results indicate that the French and German translations of the Safety Climate Survey might be a useful measurement instrument for safety climate in Swiss hospital units. Analyses at item level allow for differentiating facets of safety climate into more positive and critical safety climate aspects.

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^

A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels

The authors measured perceptions of safety climate, motivation, and behavior at 2 time points and linked them to prior and subsequent levels of accidents over a 5-year period. A series of analyses examined the effects of top-down and bottom-up processes operating simultaneously over time. In terms of top-down effects, average levels of safety climate within groups at I point in time predicted subsequent changes in individual safety motivation. Individual safety motivation, in turn, was associated with subsequent changes in self-reported safety behavior. In terms of bottom-up effects, improvements in the average level of safety behavior within groups were associated with a subsequent reduction in accidents at the group level. The results contribute to an understanding of the factors influencing workplace safety and the levels and lags at which these effects operate.

A qualitative cross-level investigation of safety climate perceptions

ver the last few decades occupational health and safety research has shifted its focus away from engineering and ergonomics as a means of improving workplace safety, and has given greater attention to examining the role played by organisational factors, such as safety climate. One factor constraining the advancement of our understanding of the safety climate construct is the tendency of researchers to remain steadfastly bound to the notion that safety climate is measured via a quantative measurement tool. Researchers in the area (e.g., Frone & Barling, 2004; Zohar, 2003) are now arguing for better triangulation of methodologies, in particular better qualitative research, to advance our knowledge and understanding. The present study extends the present body of safety climate literature in two ways; firstly, it addresses this methodological issue via the utilisation of a semi-structured interview methodology and secondly it examines the qualitative structure of safety climate perceptions across different levels (organisation, supervisor and co-worker) and different groups (managers vs. employees). Examination of the interview transcripts revealed qualitative differences and similarities between the different safety climate levels (organisational, supervisor and co-worker) and between manager and employee safety climate perceptions. Implications of these findings for safety climate theory and measurement are discussed.

Management of safety climate and the psychosocial work environment – new challenges for occupational health and safety professionals?

Introduction: The work environment and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) practice have changed over the last number of years. A holistic OHS approach has been recommended by the authorities in this field (e.g. World Health Organisation (WHO), European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)). This involves a unified action engaging elements of the physical and psychosocial workplace with greater focus on prevention and promotion of health and wellbeing. The health and safety practitioner (HSP) has been recognised as one of the main agents for implementation of OHS. Within an organisation they act as a leader of change and a professional who shapes health and safety while safeguarding the wellbeing of individuals at work. Additionally, safety climate (SC) has been developed as an essential concept for OHS of an organisation, its productivity and the wellbeing of its workforce. Scholars and practitioners have recognised the great need for further empirical evidence on the HSP’s role in a changing work environment that increasingly requires the use of preventative measures and the assessment and management of psychosocial work-related risks. This doctoral research brings together the different concepts used in OHS and Public Health including SC, Psychosocial workplace risks, Health Promotion and OHS performance. The associations between these concepts are analysed bearing in mind the WHO Healthy Workplace Framework and three of its main components (physical and psychosocial work environment and health resources). This thesis aims to establish a deeper understanding of the practice and management of OHS in Ireland and the UK, exploring the role of HSPs (employed in diverse sectors of activity) and of SC in the OHS of organisations. Methods: One systematic review and three cross-sectional research studies were performed. The systematic review focussed on the evidence compiled for the association of SC with accidents and injuries at work, clarifying this concept’s definition and its most relevant dimensions. The second article (chapter 3) explored the association of SC with accidents and injuries in a sample of workers (n=367) from a pharmaceutical industry and compared permanent with non-permanent workers. Associations of safety climate with employment status and with self-reported occupational accidents/injuries were studied through logistic regression modelling. The third and fourth papers in this thesis investigated the main tasks performed by HSPs, their perceptions of SC, health climate (HC), psychosocial risk factors and health outcomes as well as work efficacy. Validated questionnaires were applied to a sample of HSPs in Ireland and UK, members of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (n=1444). Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used to assess the association between HSPs work characteristics and their involvement in the management of Psychosocial Risk Factors, Safety Culture and Health Promotion (paper 3). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the association between SC, HC, psychosocial risk factors and health outcomes (general health and mental wellbeing) and self-efficacy. Results: As shown in the systematic review, scientific evidence is unable to establish the widely assumed causal link between SC and accidents and injuries. Nevertheless, the current results suggested that, particularly, the organisational dimensions of SC were associated with accidents and injuries and that SC is linked to health, wellbeing and safety performance in the organisation. According to the present research, contingent workers had lower SC perceptions but showed a lower accident/injury rate than their permanent colleagues. The associations of safety climate with accidents/injuries had opposite directions for the two types of workers as for permanent employees it showed an inverse relationship while for temporary workers, although not significant, a positive association was found. This thesis’ findings showed that HSPs are, to a very small degree, included in activities related to psychosocial risk management and assessment, to a moderate degree, involved in HP activities and, to a large degree, engaged in the management of safety culture in organisations. In the final research study, SC and HC were linked to job demands-control-support (JDCS), health, wellbeing and efficacy. JDCS were also associated with all three outcomes under study. Results also showed the contribution of psychosocial risk factors to the association of SC and HC with all the studied outcomes. These associations had rarely been recorded previously. Discussion & Conclusions: Health and safety climate showed a significant association with health, wellbeing and efficacy - a relationship which affects working conditions and the health and wellbeing of the workforce. This demonstrates the link of both SC and HC with the OHS and the general strength or viability of organisations. A division was noticed between the area of “health” and “safety” in the workplace and in the approach to the physical and psychosocial work environment. These findings highlighted the current challenge in ensuring a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for prevention of hazards and for an integrated OHS management. HSPs have shown to be a pivotal agent in the shaping and development of OHS in organisations. However, as observed in this thesis, the role of these professionals is still far from the recommended involvement in the management of psychosocial risk factors and could have a more complete engagement in other areas of OHS such as health promotion. Additionally, a strong culture of health and safety with supportive management and buy-in from all stakeholders is essential to achieve the ideal unified and prevention-focussed approach to OHS as recommended by the WHO, EU-OSHA and ILO.