William Martinez1, Jason M Etchegaray2, Eric J Thomas3, Gerald B Hickson4, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann5, Anneliese M Schleyer6, Jennifer A Best6, Julia T Shelburne7, Natalie B May8, Sigall K Bell9. 1. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA. 3. Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Quality, Safety & Risk Prevention, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 7. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the psychometric properties of two new survey scales aiming to measure the extent to which the clinical environment supports speaking up about (a) patient safety concerns and (b) unprofessional behaviour. METHOD: Residents from six large US academic medical centres completed an anonymous, electronic survey containing questions regarding safety culture and speaking up about safety and professionalism concerns. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported two separate, one-factor speaking up climates (SUCs) among residents; one focused on patient safety concerns (SUC-Safe scale) and the other focused on unprofessional behaviour (SUC-Prof scale). Both scales had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α>0.70) and were unique from validated safety and teamwork climate measures (r<0.85 for all correlations), a measure of discriminant validity. The SUC-Safe and SUC-Prof scales were associated with participants' self-reported speaking up behaviour about safety and professionalism concerns (r=0.21, p<0.001 and r=0.22, p<0.001, respectively), a measure of concurrent validity, while teamwork and safety climate scales were not. CONCLUSIONS: We created and provided evidence for the reliability and validity of two measures (SUC-Safe and SUC-Prof scales) associated with self-reported speaking up behaviour among residents. These two scales may fill an existing gap in residency and safety culture assessments by measuring the openness of communication about safety and professionalism concerns, two important aspects of safety culture that are under-represented in existing metrics. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the psychometric properties of two new survey scales aiming to measure the extent to which the clinical environment supports speaking up about (a) patient safety concerns and (b) unprofessional behaviour. METHOD: Residents from six large US academic medical centres completed an anonymous, electronic survey containing questions regarding safety culture and speaking up about safety and professionalism concerns. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported two separate, one-factor speaking up climates (SUCs) among residents; one focused on patient safety concerns (SUC-Safe scale) and the other focused on unprofessional behaviour (SUC-Prof scale). Both scales had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α>0.70) and were unique from validated safety and teamwork climate measures (r<0.85 for all correlations), a measure of discriminant validity. The SUC-Safe and SUC-Prof scales were associated with participants' self-reported speaking up behaviour about safety and professionalism concerns (r=0.21, p<0.001 and r=0.22, p<0.001, respectively), a measure of concurrent validity, while teamwork and safety climate scales were not. CONCLUSIONS: We created and provided evidence for the reliability and validity of two measures (SUC-Safe and SUC-Prof scales) associated with self-reported speaking up behaviour among residents. These two scales may fill an existing gap in residency and safety culture assessments by measuring the openness of communication about safety and professionalism concerns, two important aspects of safety culture that are under-represented in existing metrics. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Communication; Graduate medical education; Patient safety; Safety culture; Statistics
Authors: Judith J Voogt; Toon W Taris; Elizabeth L J van Rensen; Margriet M E Schneider; Mirko Noordegraaf; Marieke F van der Schaaf Journal: Med Educ Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Jason K C Tong; Eda Akpek; Anusha Naik; Medha Sharma; Danielle Boateng; Anietie Andy; Raina M Merchant; Rachel R Kelz Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Sigall K Bell; Stephanie D Roche; Ariel Mueller; Erica Dente; Kristin O'Reilly; Barbara Sarnoff Lee; Kenneth Sands; Daniel Talmor; Samuel M Brown Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 7.035