Gregory M Bump1, Nordisha Coots, Cindy A Liberi, Tamra E Minnier, Paul E Phrampus, Gabriella Gosman, David G Metro, Julie B McCausland, Andrew Buchert. 1. G.M. Bump is associate professor of medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. N. Coots is administrative fellow, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. C.A. Liberi is director of patient safety, Wolff Center for Quality, Safety, and Innovation, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. T.E. Minnier is chief quality officer, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. P.E. Phrampus is associate professor of emergency medicine and anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. G. Gosman is associate professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. D.G. Metro is professor of anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. J.B. McCausland is associate professor, Departments of Medicine and Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A. Buchert is assistant professor of pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education implemented the Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program to evaluate and improve the learning environment in teaching hospitals. Hospitals receive a report after a CLER visit with observations about patient safety, among other domains, the accuracy of which is unknown. Thus, the authors set out to identify complementary measures of trainees' patient safety experience. METHOD: In 2014, they administered the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture to residents and fellows and general staff at 10 hospitals in an integrated health system. The survey measured perceptions of patient safety in 12 domains and incorporated two outcome measures (number of medical errors reported and overall patient safety). Domain scores were calculated and compared between trainees and staff. RESULTS: Of 1,426 trainees, 926 responded (65% response rate). Of 18,815 staff, 12,015 responded (64% response rate). Trainees and staff scored five domains similarly-communication openness, facility management support for patient safety, organizational learning/continuous improvement, teamwork across units, and handoffs/transitions of care. Trainees scored four domains higher than staff-nonpunitive response to error, staffing, supervisor/manager expectations and actions promoting patient safety, and teamwork within units. Trainees scored three domains lower than staff-feedback and communication about error, frequency of event reporting, and overall perceptions of patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, trainees had comparable to more favorable perceptions of patient safety culture compared with staff. They did identify opportunities for improvement though. Hospitals can use perceptions of patient safety culture to complement CLER visit reports to improve patient safety.
PURPOSE: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education implemented the Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program to evaluate and improve the learning environment in teaching hospitals. Hospitals receive a report after a CLER visit with observations about patient safety, among other domains, the accuracy of which is unknown. Thus, the authors set out to identify complementary measures of trainees' patient safety experience. METHOD: In 2014, they administered the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture to residents and fellows and general staff at 10 hospitals in an integrated health system. The survey measured perceptions of patient safety in 12 domains and incorporated two outcome measures (number of medical errors reported and overall patient safety). Domain scores were calculated and compared between trainees and staff. RESULTS: Of 1,426 trainees, 926 responded (65% response rate). Of 18,815 staff, 12,015 responded (64% response rate). Trainees and staff scored five domains similarly-communication openness, facility management support for patient safety, organizational learning/continuous improvement, teamwork across units, and handoffs/transitions of care. Trainees scored four domains higher than staff-nonpunitive response to error, staffing, supervisor/manager expectations and actions promoting patient safety, and teamwork within units. Trainees scored three domains lower than staff-feedback and communication about error, frequency of event reporting, and overall perceptions of patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, trainees had comparable to more favorable perceptions of patient safety culture compared with staff. They did identify opportunities for improvement though. Hospitals can use perceptions of patient safety culture to complement CLER visit reports to improve patient safety.
Authors: Helen R Watson; Mary-Kate Dolley; Mohammad Perwaiz; Jocelyn Saxelby; Gianluca Bertone; Steven Burr; Tracey Collett; Robert Jeffery; Daniel Zahra Journal: FEBS Open Bio Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Marianna Papademetriou; Gabriel Perrault; Max Pitman; Colleen Gillespie; Sondra Zabar; Elizabeth Weinshel; Renee Williams Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-03-21 Impact factor: 5.742