BACKGROUND: Workplace safety culture is a crucial ingredient in patients' outcomes and is increasingly being explored as a guide for quality improvement efforts. OBJECTIVES: To establish a baseline understanding of the safety culture in Australian intensive care units. METHODS: In a nationwide study of physicians and nurses in 10 Australian intensive care units, the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire intensive care unit version was used to measure safety culture. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the mean scores for the 6 subscales of the questionnaire, and generalized-estimation-equations models were used to test the hypotheses that safety culture differed between physicians and nurses and between nurse leaders and bedside nurses. RESULTS: A total of 672 responses (50.6% response rate) were received: 513 (76.3%) from nurses, 89 (13.2%) from physicians, and 70 (10.4%) from respondents who did not specify their professional group. Ratings were highest for teamwork climate and lowest for perceptions of hospital management and working conditions. Four subscales, job satisfaction, teamwork climate, safety climate, and working conditions, were rated significantly higher by physicians than by nurses. Two subscales, working conditions and perceptions of hospital management, were rated significantly lower by nurse leaders than by bedside nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the baseline safety culture of an intensive care unit allows leaders to implement targeted strategies to improve specific dimensions of safety culture. These strategies ultimately may improve the working conditions of staff and the care that patients receive.
BACKGROUND: Workplace safety culture is a crucial ingredient in patients' outcomes and is increasingly being explored as a guide for quality improvement efforts. OBJECTIVES: To establish a baseline understanding of the safety culture in Australian intensive care units. METHODS: In a nationwide study of physicians and nurses in 10 Australian intensive care units, the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire intensive care unit version was used to measure safety culture. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the mean scores for the 6 subscales of the questionnaire, and generalized-estimation-equations models were used to test the hypotheses that safety culture differed between physicians and nurses and between nurse leaders and bedside nurses. RESULTS: A total of 672 responses (50.6% response rate) were received: 513 (76.3%) from nurses, 89 (13.2%) from physicians, and 70 (10.4%) from respondents who did not specify their professional group. Ratings were highest for teamwork climate and lowest for perceptions of hospital management and working conditions. Four subscales, job satisfaction, teamwork climate, safety climate, and working conditions, were rated significantly higher by physicians than by nurses. Two subscales, working conditions and perceptions of hospital management, were rated significantly lower by nurse leaders than by bedside nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the baseline safety culture of an intensive care unit allows leaders to implement targeted strategies to improve specific dimensions of safety culture. These strategies ultimately may improve the working conditions of staff and the care that patients receive.
Authors: Paloma Aparecida Carvalho; Leila Bernarda Donato Göttems; Maria Raquel Gomes Maia Pires; Maria Liz Cunha de Oliveira Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2015 Nov-Dec
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
Authors: Jasna Mesarić; Diana Šimić; Milica Katić; Ellen Catharina Tveter Deilkås; Dag Hofoss; Gunnar Tschudi Bondevik Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Solvejg Kristensen; Naina Túgvustein; Hjørdis Zachariassen; Svend Sabroe; Paul Bartels; Jan Mainz Journal: Drug Healthc Patient Saf Date: 2016-04-26
Authors: Riitta-Liisa Lakanmaa; Tarja Suominen; Marita Ritmala-Castrén; Tero Vahlberg; Helena Leino-Kilpi Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-10-18 Impact factor: 3.411