Psychometric properties of the Swiss version of the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture

The Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture (NHSPSC) was specifically developed for nursing homes to assess a facility’s safety climate and it consists of 12 dimensions. After its pilot testing, however, no fur- ther psychometric analyses were performed on the instrument. For this study of safety climate in Swiss nursing home units, the NHSPSC was linguistically adapted to the Swiss context and to address the unit as well as facility level, with the aim of testing aspects of the validity and reliability of the Swiss version before its use in Swiss nursing home units. Psychometric analyses were performed on data from 367 nurs- ing personnel from nine nursing homes in the German-speaking part of Switzerland (response rate = 66%), and content validity (CVI) examined. The statistical influence of unit membership on respondents’ answers, and on their agreement concerning their units’ safety climate, was tested using intraclass corre- lation coefficients (ICCs) and the rWG(J) interrater agreement index. A multilevel exploratory factor analysis (MEFA) with oblimin rotation was applied to examine the questionnaire’s dimensionality. Cronbach’s alpha and Raykov’s rho were calculated to assess factor reliability. The relationship of safety climate dimensions with clinical outcomes was explored. Expert feedback confirmed the relevance of the instru- ment’s items (CVI = 0.93). Personnel showed strong agreement in their perceptions in three dimensions of the questionnaire. ICCs supported a multilevel analysis. MEFA produced nine factors at the within-level (in comparison to 12 in the original version) and two factors at the between-level with satisfactory fit statis- tics. Raykov’s Rho for the single level factors ranged between 0.67 and 0.86. Some safety climate dimen- sions show moderate, but non-significant correlations with the use of bedrails, physical restraint use, and fall-related injuries. The Swiss version of the NHSPSC needs further refinement and testing before its use can be recommended in Swiss nursing homes: its dimensionality needs further clarification, particularly to distinguish items addressing the unit-level safety climate from those at the facility level.

The relationship between surgical residents' perception of leadership and patient safety culture

Introduction. Patient safety culture is the integration of interrelated practices that once developed is supported by both the culture and leadership of the organization (Sagan, 1993). The purpose of this study is to describe and examine the relationship between surgical residents’ perception of their leadership and the resulting organizational safety culture within their clinical setting. This assessment is important to understanding the extent that leadership style affects the perception of the safety culture.^ Methods. A secondary dataset was used which included data from 68 surgical residents from two survey instruments, Organizational Description Questionnaire (ODQ) and Patient Safety Climate In Healthcare Organizations (PSCHO) Survey. Multiple regressions followed by hierarchical regressions with the introduction of the Post Graduate Year (PGY) variable examined the association between the leadership styles, Transactional and Transformational and the organizational safety culture variables, Overall Emphasis on Safety, Senior management engagement, Organizational resources for safety. Independent t-tests were conducted to assess whether males and females differ among the organizational safety culture variables and either leadership style.^ Results. The surgical residents perceived their organizational leadership to have greater emphasis placed on transformational leadership culture style relative to transactional leadership culture style. The only significant association found was between Transformational leadership and Organizational resources for safety. PGY had no significant effect on the leadership or the safety culture perceived. No significant difference was found between females and males in regards to the safety culture or the leadership style.^ Discussion. These results have implications as they support the premise for the study which is surgical residents perceive their existing leadership and organizational culture to be more transformational in nature than transactional. Significance was found between the leadership perceived and one of the safety culture variables, Organizational resources for safety. The foundation for this association lies in the fact that surgical residents are the personnel which are a part of the organizational resources. Although PGY differentiation did not seem to play a difference in the leadership perceived this could be attributed to the small sample size. No gender difference were found which supports the assumption that within such a highly specialized group such as surgical residents there is no gender differences since the highly specialized field draws a certain type of person with distinct characteristics. In future research these survey tools can be used to gauge the survey audiences’ perception and safety interventions can be developed based on the results. ^

Patient Safety - A Psychological Perspective

This comprehensive book takes a psychological perspective on patient safety. It is based on the most recent theoretical and empirical research evidence from psychology (including clinical, work, and organizational psychology) and adjacent social and behavioral sciences such as human factors. Factors that influence safety-related experiences, behaviors, and outcomes of patients and professionals working in clinical settings such as medical practices and hospitals are reviewed, structured, and critically evaluated. Consistent with the complexity of the topic, the author takes a multi-level approach to patient safety, which includes a review of individual, team, and organizational factors and outcomes. The book describes how these factors, by themselves and in combination, can facilitate or impede patient safety. Individual factors include safety-relevant knowledge, skills, abilities, and personality traits such as conscientiousness and emotional stability. Team factors include group communication, training, and leadership. Finally, organizational factors include the safety culture and climate. Throughout the book, different evidence-based intervention programs are described that can help practitioners promote patient safety and prevent accidents. The book is a valuable resource for both researchers and practitioners interested in understanding, maintaining, and improving patient safety in a variety of applied settings. It is based on the most up-to-date research evidence from psychology and neighboring disciplines, and it is written in a clear and non-technical language understandable for a wide audience.

Are clinical documents optimised for patient safety? A critical analysis of patient safety outcomes using the EDA error model

Iatrogenic errors and patient safety in clinical processes are an increasing concern. The quality of process information in hardcopy or electronic form can heavily influence clinical behaviour and decision making errors. Little work has been undertaken to assess the safety impact of clinical process planning documents guiding the clinical actions and decisions. This paper investigates the clinical process documents used in elective surgery and their impact on latent and active clinical errors. Eight clinicians from a large health trust underwent extensive semi- structured interviews to understand their use of clinical documents, and their perceived impact on errors and patient safety. Samples of the key types of document used were analysed. Theories of latent organisational and active errors from the literature were combined with the EDA semiotics model of behaviour and decision making to propose the EDA Error Model. This model enabled us to identify perceptual, evaluation, knowledge and action error types and approaches to reducing their causes. The EDA error model was then used to analyse sample documents and identify error sources and controls. Types of knowledge artefact structures used in the documents were identified and assessed in terms of safety impact. This approach was combined with analysis of the questionnaire findings using existing error knowledge from the literature. The results identified a number of document and knowledge artefact issues that give rise to latent and active errors and also issues concerning medical culture and teamwork together with recommendations for further work.

Frequency of and predictors for withholding patient safety concerns among oncology staff: a survey study.

Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and to improve a culture of safety. This study investigated the prevalence of non-speaking up despite concerns for safety and aimed to identify predictors for withholding voice among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology. A self-administered questionnaire assessed safety concerns, speaking up beliefs and behaviours among nurses and doctors from nine oncology departments. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors for withholding safety concerns. A total of 1013 HCPs returned the completed survey (response rate 65%). Safety concerns were common among responders. Fifty-four per cent reported to recognise their colleagues making potentially harmful errors at least sometimes. A majority of responders reported at least some episodes of withholding concerns about patient safety. Thirty-seven per cent said they remained silent at least once when they had information that might have helped prevent an incident. Respondents believed that a high level of interpersonal, communication and coping skills are necessary to speak up about patient safety issues at their workplace. Higher levels of perceived advocacy for patient safety and psychological safety significantly decreased the frequency of withholding voice. Remaining silent about safety concerns is a common phenomenon in oncology. Improved strategies are needed to support staff in effective communication and make cancer care safer.

Key points for patient safety in dialysis access.

For more than 15 years, patient safety has been an issue in different domains of medicine. There is evidence for this subject and also a great need for information. First, we should be familiar with the basic terminology such as the relationship between adverse events and errors, and understand the variations of error. In patient management, besides skills and knowledge (evidence-based medicine), the ability (competence) of healthcare professionals to act and react in unexpected situations is key to prevent and treat adverse events. Not only healthcare professionals should be involved in the process but also healthy people in a way that they understand and patients in a way that they are actively involved. This paper will show how a more general view of patient safety can and should be implemented in the daily work of caregivers dealing with dialysis access in different aspects. A key factor to advance in this subject is to be open-minded and sensualized for this topic. The reader should get an idea of how an institution can create a culture of safety.

Accountability, organisational learning and risks to patient safety in England: conflict or compromise?

This article examines the current risk regulation regime, within the English National Health Service (NHS), by investigating the two, sometimes conflicting, approaches to risk embodied within the field of policies towards patient safety. The first approach focuses on promoting accountability and is built on legal principles surrounding negligence and competence. The second approach focuses on promoting learning from previous mistakes and near-misses, and is built on the development of a ‘safety culture’. Previous work has drawn attention to problems associated with risk-based regulation when faced with the dual imperatives of accountability and organisational learning. The article develops this by considering whether the NHS patient safety regime demonstrates the coexistence of two different risk regulation regimes, or merely one regime with contradictory elements. It uses the heuristic device of ‘institutional logics’ to examine the coexistence of and interrelationship between ‘organisational learning’ and ‘accountability’ logics driving risk regulation in health care.

Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals:mixed method evaluation

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for "difference in difference" 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from17%(63) to13%(49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals. Conclusions The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening.

Organisational and systems factors impacting on patient safety in acute care organisations: lessons from four multi-site research studies

Background Patient safety is concerned with preventable harm in healthcare, a subject that became a focus for study in the UK in the late 1990s. How to improve patient safety, presented both a practical and a research challenge in the early 2000s, leading to the eleven publications presented in this thesis. Research question The overarching research question was: What are the key organisational and systems factors that impact on patient safety, and how can these best be researched? Methods Research was conducted in over 40 acute care organisations in the UK and Europe between 2006 and 2013. The approaches included surveys, interviews, documentary analysis and non-participant observation. Two studies were longitudinal. Results The findings reveal the nature and extent of poor systems reliability and its effect on patient safety; the factors underpinning cases of patient harm; the cultural issues impacting on safety and quality; and the importance of a common language for quality and safety across an organisation. Across the publications, nine key organisational and systems factors emerged as important for patient safety improvement. These include leadership stability; data infrastructure; measurement capability; standardisation of clinical systems; and creating an open and fair collective culture where poor safety is challenged. Conclusions and contribution to knowledge The research presented in the publications has provided a more complete understanding of the organisation and systems factors underpinning safer healthcare. Lessons are drawn to inform methods for future research, including: how to define success in patient safety improvement studies; how to take into account external influences during longitudinal studies; and how to confirm meaning in multi-language research. Finally, recommendations for future research include assessing the support required to maintain a patient safety focus during periods of major change or austerity; the skills needed by healthcare leaders; and the implications of poor data infrastructure.

Doctors' thinking about the system as a threat to patient safety

‘Systems thinking’ is an important feature of the emerging ‘patient safety’ agenda. As a key component of a ‘safety culture’, it encourages clinicians to look past individual error to recognise the latent factors that threaten safety. This paper investigates whether current medical thinking is commensurate with the idea of ‘systems thinking’ together with its implications for policy. The findings are based on qualitative semistructured interviews with specialist physicians working within one NHS District General Hospital in the English Midlands. It is shown that, rather then favouring a 'person-centred’ perspective, doctors readily identify ‘the system’ as a threat to patient safety. This is not necessarily a reflection of the prevailing safety discourse or knowledge of policy, but reflects a tacit understanding of how services are (dis)organised. This line of thinking serves to mitigate individual wrong-doing and protect professional credibility by encouraging doctors to accept and accommodate the shortcomings of the system, rather than participate in new forms of organisational learning.

Safety culture research, lead indicators, and the development of safety effectiveness indicators in the construction sector

Construction sector application of Lead Indicators generally and Positive Performance Indicators (PPIs) particularly, are largely seen by the sector as not providing generalizable indicators of safety effectiveness. Similarly, safety culture is often cited as an essential factor in improving safety performance, yet there is no known reliable way of measuring safety culture. This paper proposes that the accurate measurement of safety effectiveness and safety culture is a requirement for assessing safe behaviours, safety knowledge, effective communication and safety performance. Currently there are no standard national or international safety effectiveness indicators (SEIs) that are accepted by the construction industry. The challenge is that quantitative survey instruments developed for measuring safety culture and/ or safety climate are inherently flawed methodologically and do not produce reliable and representative data concerning attitudes to safety. Measures that combine quantitative and qualitative components are needed to provide a clear utility for safety effectiveness indicators.

Psychological determinants of safety culture

- Safety psychology and workplace safety - Motivational and attitudinal components of safety - Psychological determinants of safety - Addressing risk-behaviour in safety - Case Study from Construction - Discussion and Questions

Safety culture research, lead indicators, and the development of safety effectiveness indicators in the construction sector

Construction sector application of Lead Indicators generally and Positive Performance Indicators (PPIs) particularly, are largely seen by the sector as not providing generalizable indicators of safety effectiveness. Similarly, safety culture is often cited as an essential factor in improving safety performance, yet there is no known reliable way of measuring safety culture. This paper proposes that the accurate measurement of safety effectiveness and safety culture is a requirement for assessing safe behaviours, safety knowledge, effective communication and safety performance. Currently there are no standard national or international safety effectiveness indicators (SEIs) that are accepted by the construction industry. The challenge is that quantitative survey instruments developed for measuring safety culture and/ or safety climate are inherently flawed methodologically and do not produce reliable and representative data concerning attitudes to safety. Measures that combine quantitative and qualitative components are needed to provide a clear utility for safety effectiveness indicators.

Framework for measuring corporate safety culture and its impact on construction safety performance

This paper presents the results of a structural equation model (SEM) that describes and quantifies the relationships between corporate culture and safety performance. The SEM is estimated using 196 individual questionnaire responses from three companies with better than average safety records. A multiattribute analysis of corporate safety culture characteristics resulted in a hierarchical description of corporate safety culture comprised of three major categories — people, process, and value. These three major categories were decomposed into 54 measurable questions and used to develop a questionnaire to quantify corporate safety culture. The SEM identified five latent variables that describe corporate safety culture: (1) a company’s safety commitment; (2) the safety incentives that are offered to field personal for safe performance; (3) the subcontractor involvement in the company culture; (4) the field safety accountability and dedication; and (5) the disincentives for unsafe behaviors. These characteristics of company safety culture serve as indicators for a company’s safety performance. Based on the findings from this limited sample of three companies, this paper proposes a list of practices that companies may consider to improve corporate safety culture and safety performance. A more comprehensive study based on a larger sample is recommended to corroborate the findings of this study.