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.

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 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.

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.^

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.

Health and safety : a survey of provisions in labor agreements in the federal service, October, 1975 /

"USCSC/OLMR-75/06."

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.