BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the variability in safety culture dimensions within and between Swiss and US clinical areas. METHODS: Cross-sectional design. The 30-item Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was distributed in 2009 to clinicians involved in direct patient care in medical and surgical units of two Swiss and 10 US hospitals. At the unit level, results were calculated as the percentage of respondents within a unit who reported positive perceptions. MANOVA and ANOVA were used to test for differences between and within US and Swiss hospital units. RESULTS: In total, 1370 clinicians from 54 hospital units responded (response rate 84%), including 1273 nurses and 97 physicians. In Swiss hospital units, three SAQ dimensions were lower (safety climate, p=0.024; stress recognition, p<0.001; and perceptions of management, p<0.001) compared with US hospital units. There was significant variability in four out of six SAQ dimensions (teamwork climate, safety climate, job satisfaction and perceptions of unit management) (p<0.001). Moreover, intraclass correlations indicate that these four dimensions vary more at the unit level than hospital level, whereas stress recognition and working conditions vary more at the hospital level. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found differences in SAQ dimensions at the country, hospital and unit levels. The general emphases placed on teamwork and safety climate in quality and safety efforts appear to be highlighting dimensions that vary more at the unit than hospital level. They suggest that patient safety improvement interventions target unit level changes, and they support the emphasis being placed on teamwork and safety climate, as these vary significantly at the unit level across countries.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the variability in safety culture dimensions within and between Swiss and US clinical areas. METHODS: Cross-sectional design. The 30-item Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was distributed in 2009 to clinicians involved in direct patient care in medical and surgical units of two Swiss and 10 US hospitals. At the unit level, results were calculated as the percentage of respondents within a unit who reported positive perceptions. MANOVA and ANOVA were used to test for differences between and within US and Swiss hospital units. RESULTS: In total, 1370 clinicians from 54 hospital units responded (response rate 84%), including 1273 nurses and 97 physicians. In Swiss hospital units, three SAQ dimensions were lower (safety climate, p=0.024; stress recognition, p<0.001; and perceptions of management, p<0.001) compared with US hospital units. There was significant variability in four out of six SAQ dimensions (teamwork climate, safety climate, job satisfaction and perceptions of unit management) (p<0.001). Moreover, intraclass correlations indicate that these four dimensions vary more at the unit level than hospital level, whereas stress recognition and working conditions vary more at the hospital level. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found differences in SAQ dimensions at the country, hospital and unit levels. The general emphases placed on teamwork and safety climate in quality and safety efforts appear to be highlighting dimensions that vary more at the unit than hospital level. They suggest that patient safety improvement interventions target unit level changes, and they support the emphasis being placed on teamwork and safety climate, as these vary significantly at the unit level across countries.
Authors: Sarah Channing; Neil Ryan; Sophie Barnes; Kate Collins; Helen van der Nelson; Jane Mears; Dimitrios Siassakos Journal: BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn Date: 2017-04-05
Authors: J Bryan Sexton; Paul J Sharek; Eric J Thomas; Jeffrey B Gould; Courtney C Nisbet; Amber B Amspoker; Mark A Kowalkowski; René Schwendimann; Jochen Profit Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Jane K O'Hara; Katja Grasic; Nils Gutacker; Andrew Street; Robbie Foy; Carl Thompson; John Wright; Rebecca Lawton Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gunnar Tschudi Bondevik; Dag Hofoss; Elisabeth Holm Hansen; Ellen Catharina Tveter Deilkås Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Solvejg Kristensen; Svend Sabroe; Paul Bartels; Jan Mainz; Karl Bang Christensen Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Solvejg Kristensen; Karl Bang Christensen; Annette Jaquet; Carsten Møller Beck; Svend Sabroe; Paul Bartels; Jan Mainz Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 2.692