Analysis of Factors Influencing Safety Attitudes of Operating Room Nurses and Their Cognition and Attitudes toward Adverse Event Reporting.

Operating room nurses play a critical role in patient safety. The evaluation of safety attitudes of operating room nurses reflects their awareness and belief of patient safety. Currently, however, the research on the safety attitudes of operating room nurses is hard to track in the existing literature in China. Therefore, this paper was conducted to explore the factors influencing the safety attitudes of operating room nurses and their cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting. A total of 711 operating room nurses from 16 tertiary hospitals in Sichuan Province from March 1, 2018, to 2019 were selected. The general information of operating room nurses, such as age, gender, and years of service in the operating room, was obtained through the basic information questionnaire. The Chinese version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (C-SAQ) was used to evaluate the safety attitude of operating room nurses, and the cognition and attitude of the subjects to adverse event reports were assessed through the questionnaire of cognition and attitude toward adverse event reporting. The average score of safety attitudes of operating room nurses was 4.20 ± 0.49. The two dimensions with a lower positive reaction rate of the safety attitudes of operating room nurses were stress recognition and working conditions. The main factors affecting the safety attitude of operating room nurses were night shifts, as well as cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting. There was a positive correlation between the total score of C-SAQ and the total score of cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting (P < 0.01, r = 0.445). The safety attitude of operating room nurses is at the upper-middle level, but the stress recognition and working conditions need to be improved. Through the allocation of nursing human resources, the strengthening of hospital logistics support, and the establishment of nonpunitive nursing adverse event reporting system, the operating room safety can be significantly enhanced.

1. Introduction

According to the report Patient Safety 2030 published by the National Institute for Health Research, the failure to ensure patient safety is a major problem while providing health services [1]. The WHO reports that approximately 134 million adverse events and 2.6 million associated deaths occur each year in low-income and middle-income countries due to unsafe medical environments provided by hospitals [2]. In addition, the promotion and application of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (2008) are significant; however, recent studies demonstrated that the Surgical Safety Checklist is only partially implemented in many hospitals [3, 4]. In Greek, medical personnel believe that surgical safety is important; however, there is a big cognitive gap in the implementation of responsibilities and standardized procedures [5]. Related studies in China have reported some safety issues, such as surgical site errors, gauze left in patients, and other serious medical malpractice. In 2019, a pregnant woman in Panzhihua City, Sichuan Province, died of three gauze pieces left in her abdomen after a cesarean section, which caused nurses in the operating room to reflect on patient safety. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to study the influencing factors of operating room safety accidents and analyze the attitude of operating room nurses for preventing errors and improving patient safety.

A number of studies have shown that medical staff's awareness of safety culture is closely related to clinical adverse events [6-8]. The key to maintaining patient safety lies in establishing a safety culture. Murray et al. pointed out that the medical staff's safety attitudes toward patients are vital in the patient safety culture, and improved medical staff's attitudes to patient safety promote patient health and safety [9]. Haugen et al. also proposed that the attitude and behavior of the surgical team reflected the development of safety procedures in the operating room [10]. On the other hand, reporting and analyzing adverse events is key to improving patient safety, which can not only make medical staff consciously avoid surgical errors but also improve the safety of the whole system [11]. Operating room nurses have frequent contact with patients, which is the first defense line to ensure patient safety. Therefore, to construct a safe operating room organizational culture, it is necessary to understand the status quo of operating room nurses' safety attitudes as well as their cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting, so as to make targeted improvements to improve their behavior with the safety culture. In recent years, the tertiary grade A hospitals in China are favored by patients, and the number of operations is increasing year by year. However, the problem of operation safety has become increasingly prominent. The assessment of operating room nurses' safety attitudes and their cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting can reflect their perception of patient safety and faith. However, only a few studies have addressed the safety culture of operating room nurses in China. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the safety attitude of operating room nurses from 16 tertiary hospitals in Sichuan Province, China, and explore whether the social demographic factors and operating room nurses' cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting have an impact on patient safety.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This cross-sectional survey was conducted from March 1, 2018 to 2019. The survey participants were operating room nurses across 16 tertiary hospitals in Sichuan Province who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were assimilated by the convenience sampling method. The paper participants were aware of the background and purpose of the paper. All participants in this paper provided informed consent. Inclusion criteria were as follows: voluntary participants; those who had obtained the nurse qualification certificate and were registered; those who had worked in the operating room of the inpatient department of a medical institution for ≥1 year. Exclusion criteria were as follows: those who were on leave; those who were to go abroad for further study; those who were in other hospitals. Elimination criteria were as follows: those who dropped out of the study; those questionnaires with missing value >20%.

2.2. Research Tool

The questionnaire included 12 items of age, gender, length of service in the operating room, mode of employment, initial education, final education, position, professional title, marital status, night shifts, weekly overtime hours, and adverse events reported in the past year.

The C-SAQ was translated and revised by Guo Xia of Shanxi Medical University in 2009 according to the general version of SAQ [12]. The Cronbach's α coefficient of each dimension was 0.72–0.85, and the overall value was 0.88, with adequate reliability and validity. The revised scale consists of 6 dimensions, which are teamwork climate, safety climate, perceptions of management, job satisfaction, working conditions, and stress recognition, with 31 items in total. The five grades of the Likert scale were as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = slightly agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Among these, 6, 13, 28, 29, 30, and 31 were negative entries, with inverted scores. Each item was assigned a value of 1–5 points, and the total score of the scale was 31–155 points; the higher the score, the more positive the safety attitude.

The Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale was designed by Wilson et al. [13] and introduced by Nanjing University of traditional Chinese medicine in 2012. It was adopted and translated into a questionnaire suitable for China. Cronbach's α coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.8484. It covers 5 dimensions of perceived blame, perceived criteria for identifying events that should be reported, perceptions of colleagues' expectations, perceived benefits of reporting, and perceived clarity of reporting procedures, with a total of 28 items (14 positive and 14 negative items). The scale uses the Likert scale as follows: proficiency = 5, familiarity = 4, understanding = 3, being clear = 2, not knowing = 1, strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1; the negative items were scored in reverse. The total score of the scale was the sum of the items, i.e., 28–140. The higher the score, the better the research participants' awareness of adverse event reports, the more positive their attitudes, and the more positive their intention to implement.

3. Proposed Methods

3.1. Estimation of Sample Size

The sample size was 5–10-fold of the scale items. In this paper, 31 items comprised the C-SAQ and 28 items in the adverse event report cognition and attitude questionnaire. In order to make the sample size representative, we selected 590 cases (10 times of the scale items), but considering the incomplete or missing responses in the questionnaire, the sample size was expanded by 20% to 708 cases.

3.2. Preinvestigation

The number of people being investigated was determined by at least 5% of the sample size (590 × 5% = 30 cases). In February 2018, 40 nurses meeting the inclusion criteria were selected in the operating room of the inpatient department of a tertiary hospital for a presurvey. Two weeks later, the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the research tools were calculated. According to the results of the presurvey and the problems encountered, the descriptions of some items in the questionnaires were adjusted and modified, and expert opinions were solicited to form the final version of the questionnaires. The preinvestigation revealed that Cronbach's coefficient of the C-SAQ used in this paper was 0.89, the test-retest reliability was 0.90, and Cronbach's coefficient and test-retest reliability of adverse event reporting cognition and attitude questionnaire were 0.86 and 0.87, respectively.

3.3. Data Collection and Sorting

The investigator communicated with the head nurse of the operating room of the tertiary class A hospitals in advance by telephone and then distributed the questionnaires to the participants in each hospital at the agreed time. In the morning class meeting, the following parameters were considered: the research purpose, inclusion and exclusion criteria, matters needing attention when filling out the questionnaire, confidentiality commitment to the survey data, and informed consent. The researcher handed out the questionnaires to the nurses on the spot. The time for filling out the questionnaires was 15–20 min. The nurse filled out the questionnaires anonymously and put them in a recycling box, from where the researcher retrieved them.

3.4. Quality Control

After consulting relevant literature, resurvey, and experts, the first drafts of the questionnaires were set and modified. The words used were accurate and standardized to ensure that the respondents could understand the contents accurately and reduce the possibility of wrong and random answers. Each returned questionnaire was classified and numbered, and the questionnaires with the same option and more than 3 missing items were excluded. In the data entry stage, logic error checking was carried out to ensure the accuracy of the data.

3.5. Research Ethics

This paper was approved by the Ethics Committee and Hospital Management of West China Hospital, West China Second Hospital, West China Stomatological Hospital, West China Fourth Hospital, Army General Hospital, Chengdu Third People's Hospital, Chengdu Orthopedic Hospital, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Chengdu Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu University Hospital, Wenjiang Fifth People's Hospital, Chengdu Women and Children's Central Hospital, Chengdu Second Hospital, and West China Hospital Shangjin Branch Hospital (No. 153). The present study described the research participants, and the consent of the investigation was obtained, which was in line with the principle of voluntary harmlessness. In this paper, the general personal data of the respondents were confidential and filled in anonymously. The results were limited to this paper, and no other interests were involved.

3.6. Statistical Analysis

EpiData3.1 was used to establish a database for all the collected data, and SPSS17.0 software was used for statistical analysis. For the general information of operating room nurses, enumeration data were described by frequencies (percentages), and measurement data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. The score of C-SAQ was described by mean ± SD. The positive response rate of each dimension or item was equal to the number of positive responses/the total number of responses. Positive items such as “slightly agree” and “strongly agree” were counted as positive responses, while the reverse items were opposite; “disagree” and “strongly disagree” were counted as negative responses. For the analysis of the general situation of safety attitudes of operating room nurses, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or two-sample t-test was used. Pearson's correlation test was used to analyze the correlation between C-SAQ score and adverse event reporting cognition and attitude score. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to explore the factors influencing the safety attitudes of operating room nurses. The entry standard was 0.05, and the exclusion standard was 0.10. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

4. Experimental Results and Analysis

In this paper, 755 cases were investigated, among which 711 were effective samples. The recovery rate of the questionnaires was 94.2%. The general information of the 711 operating room nurses is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Survey results of general information of operating room nurses (n = 711).

Variables	Number of people	Constituent ratio (%)
Age (year)
≤25	174	24.5
26–35	380	53.4
36–45	96	13.5
>45	61	8.6
Gender
Male	53	7.5
Female	658	92.5
Length of service in the operating room (year)
≤3	202	28.4
4–10	278	39.1
>10	231	32.5
Mode of employment
Contract system	497	69.9
Fixed establishment	214	30.1
Initial education
Secondary specialized school	265	37.3
Junior college	307	43.2
Bachelor degree or above	139	19.5
Final education
Secondary specialized school	15	2.1
Junior college	226	31.8
Bachelor degree or above	470	66.1
Post
Nurse	556	78.2
Teaching teacher	125	17.6
Head nurse and above	30	4.2
Professional ranks and titles
Nurse	207	29.1
Nurse practitioner	332	46.7
Nurse in charge	157	22.1
Deputy chief nurse and above	15	2.1
Marital status
Unmarried	253	35.6
Married	448	63
Divorce or separation	10	1.4
Night shifts
Yes	477	67.1
No	234	32.9
Weekly overtime hours (h)
No overtime	110	15.5
≤5	226	31.8
6–10	208	29.2
>10	167	23.5
Adverse events reported in the past year
Yes	274	38.5
No	437	61.5

The total average score of C-SAQ of the operating room nurses was 4.20 ± 0.49, and the overall positive response rate was 80.55%, which was in the upper-middle level. The scores of each dimension from high to low were perceptions of management, job satisfaction, safety climate, teamwork climate, stress recognition, and working conditions. Perceptions of management, job satisfaction, safety climate, and teamwork climate with a positive response rate >80% were considered as advantageous dimensions, while stress recognition and working conditions with a positive response rate <80% were considered as the dimensions to be improved. Table 2 is the total score and scores of various dimensions of safety attitudes of operating room nurses. Table 3 is the positive response rate of each item of safety attitudes of operating room nurses.

Table 2

Total score and scores of various dimensions of safety attitudes of operating room nurses (n = 711).

Dimension	Total score	Total average score	Average score of all items	Positive response rate (%)
Teamwork climate (items 1–6)	30	25.25 ± 3.34	4.21 ± 0.56	81.95
Safety climate (items 7–13)	35	29.69 ± 4.19	4.24 ± 0.60	82.98
Perceptions of management (items 14–17)	20	17.68 ± 2.78	4.42 ± 0.69	87.03
Job satisfaction (items 18–22)	25	21.38 ± 3.87	4.28 ± 0.77	83.46
Working conditions (items 23–27)	25	19.87 ± 3.65	3.97 ± 0.73	74.04
Stress recognition (items 28–31)	20	16.19 ± 4.13	4.05 ± 1.03	78.20
Total score	155	130.05 ± 15.27	4.20 ± 0.49	80.55

Table 3

Positive response rate of each item of safety attitudes of operating room nurses (n = 711).

Item	Content	Positive responders (n)	Positive response rate (%)	Rank
14	Patient safety is the top priority in this clinical area management.	674	94.80	1
10	I know the proper channels to direct questions regarding patient safety in this clinical area.	672	94.51	2
4	I have the support I need from other personnel to care for patients.	670	94.23	3
5	It is easy for personnel here to ask questions when there is something that they do not understand.	666	93.67	4
2	Disagreements in this clinical area are resolved appropriately (i.e., not who is right, but what is best for the patient).	643	90.44	5
9	Medical errors are handled appropriately in this clinical area.	639	89.87	6
19	Working here is like being part of a large family.	631	88.75	7
12	I would feel safe being treated here as a patient.	623	87.62	8
8	The culture in this clinical area makes it easy to learn from the errors of others.	621	87.34	9
31	I am less effective at work when fatigued.	616	86.64	10
24	This department does a good job of training new personnel.	615	86.50	11
15	Management supports my daily efforts.	614	86.36	12
7	I am encouraged by my colleagues to report any patient safety concerns I may have.	611	85.94	13
21	I like my job.	602	84.67	14
25	Trainees in my discipline are adequately supervised.	597	83.97	15
18	I am proud to work in this clinical area.	596	83.83	16
16	I get adequate, timely info about events that might affect my work.	595	83.68	17
17	This is a good place to work.	592	83.26	18
20	Morale in this clinical area is high.	586	82.42	19
26	Problem personnel are dealt with constructively by our department.	586	82.42	20
1	The physicians and nurses here work together as a well-coordinated team.	585	82.28	21
30	Fatigue impairs my performance during emergency situations (such as rescuing cardiac arrest patients).	562	79.04	22
11	I receive appropriate feedback about my performance.	553	77.78	23
22	All kinds of technical operation procedures are concise.	552	77.64	24
3	The suggestions about safety would be acted upon if they were expressed to management.	540	75.95	25
9	I am more likely to make errors in tense or hostile situations.	531	74.68	26
28	When my workload becomes excessive, my performance is impaired.	515	72.43	27
27	The levels of staffing in this clinical area are sufficient to handle the number of patients.	460	64.70	28
13	In this clinical area, it is difficult to discuss errors.	411	57.81	29
6	In this clinical area, it is difficult to speak up if I perceive a problem with patient care.	392	55.13	30
23	This clinical area has sufficient support from the logistics department.	374	52.60	31

As shown in Table 4, the score of teamwork climate varied in nurses with different positions, night shifts (with or without), and weekly overtime hours (P < 0.05). Also, significant differences were detected in the scores of safety climate and perceptions of management among nurses of different ages, positions, and night shifts (with or without) (P < 0.05). Significant differences were observed in the scores of job satisfaction among nurses in different age groups, length of service in operating room, and positions (P < 0.05). As shown in Table 5, the total score of C-SAQ is positively correlated with the total score of cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting (P < 0.01, r = 0.445). Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with the total score of safety attitudes of operating room nurses as the dependent variable, the general information of operating room nurses, and the total score of their cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting as independent variables. Table 6 shows the independent variable assignment of factors influencing the C-SAQ of operating room nurses. The results showed that night shifts, awareness, and attitude toward adverse event reporting were the main influencing factors of safety attitudes of operating room nurses (P < 0.05). Table 7 presents multiple linear stepwise regression analysis of safety attitudes of operating room nurses.

Table 4

Univariate analysis of C-SAQ of operating room nurses (n = 711).

Variable group	Teamwork climate (mean ± SD)	Safety climate (mean ± SD)	Perceptions of management (mean ± SD)	Job satisfaction (mean ± SD)	Working conditions (mean ± SD)	Stress recognition (mean ± SD)	C-SAQ total score (mean ± SD)
Age (year)
≤25	25.29 ± 3.28	29.56 ± 3.82	17.85 ± 2.47	21.94 ± 3.60	20.76 ± 3.50	16.03 ± 4.10	131.43 ± 14.38
26–35	25.07 ± 3.51	29.44 ± 4.53	17.43 ± 3.03	20.99 ± 4.20	19.48 ± 3.76	16.36 ± 4.12	128.77 ± 16.54
36–45	25.52 ± 2.90	30.35 ± 3.62	17.91 ± 2.46	21.48 ± 3.28	19.51 ± 3.36	15.39 ± 4.68	130.90 ± 12.18
>45	25.84 ± 3.03	30.51 ± 3.73	18.36 ± 2.29	22.1 ± 3.0	20.30 ± 3.32	16.82 ± 3.14	130.05 ± 13.02
F	1.219	2.08	2.684	3.232	5.603	1.981	2.677
P	0.302	0.101	0.046	0.022	0.001	0.115	0.046
Length of service in the operating room
≤3	25.31 ± 3.45	29.55 ± 4.05	17.89 ± 2.51	21.96 ± 3.61	20.61 ± 3.50	15.78 ± 4.11	130.95 ± 15.24
4–10	25.09 ± 3.30	29.22 ± 4.40	17.46 ± 2.99	21.01 ± 4.17	19.62 ± 3.72	16.49 ± 4.15	129.21 ± 16.13
>10	25.39 ± 3.30	29.97 ± 4.05	17.79 ± 2.68	21.38 ± 3.57	19.55 ± 3.58	16.19 ± 4.11	130.28 ± 15.27
F	0.577	0.782	1.65	3.61	5.67	1.72	0.794
P	0.562	0.458	0.194	0.027	0.005	0.179	0.452
Mode of employment
Contract system	25.31 ± 3.37	29.76 ± 4.25	17.66 ± 2.83	21.54 ± 4.00	20.11 ± 3.70	15.94 ± 4.25	130.33 ± 15.85
Fixed establishment	25.10 ± 3.27	29.50 ± 4.06	17.71 ± 2.66	21.00 ± 3.53	19.32 ± 3.46	16.75 ± 3.77	129.39 ± 13.85
T	0.765	0.758	−0.2	1.7	2.66	−2.41	0.752
P	0.444	0.448	0.839	0.09	0.008	0.016	0.452
Initial education
Secondary specialized school	25.53 ± 3.25	30.21 ± 3.94	17.97 ± 2.65	21.74 ± 3.46	20.01 ± 3.60	15.92 ± 4.26	131.39 ± 14.51
Junior college	25.09 ± 3.46	29.71 ± 4.38	17.57 ± 2.93	21.34 ± 4.17	20.02 ± 3.80	16.21 ± 4.00	129.94 ± 16.47
Bachelor degree or above	25.06 ± 3.22	28.63 ± 4.05	17.36 ± 2.63	20.78 ± 3.85	19.28 ± 3.34	16.63 ± 4.14	127.74 ± 13.64
F	1.485	6.641	2.672	2.855	2.271	1.369	2.628
P	0.227	0.001	0.07	0.058	0.104	0.255	0.073
Final education
Secondary specialized school	25.93 ± 3.53	30.47 ± 3.31	18.87 ± 2.07	23.27 ± 2.89	22.13 ± 2.95	15.13 ± 4.61	135.80 ± 11.21
Junior college	25.00 ± 3.34	29.56 ± 4.08	17.63 ± 2.71	21.46 ± 3.89	20.08 ± 3.75	15.96 ± 4.00	129.68 ± 15.03
Bachelor degree or above	25.35 ± 3.33	29.72 ± 4.27	17.66 ± 2.83	21.28 ± 3.88	19.70 ± 3.59	16.33 ± 4.17	130.05 ± 15.27
F	1.145	0.385	1.42	1.99	3.82	1.12	1.13
P	0.319	0.681	0.243	0.137	0.022	0.326	0.324
Post
Nurse	25.28 ± 3.32	29.27 ± 2.41	17.18 ± 2.69	21.44 ± 3.84	20.02 ± 3.65	16.31 ± 3.90	130.47 ± 15.17
Teaching teacher	24.76 ± 3.50	29.18 ± 4.64	17.73 ± 3.23	20.81 ± 4.18	19.21 ± 3.78	15.77 ± 4.87	126.90 ± 16.36
Head nurse and above	26.80 ± 2.59	29.70 ± 4.12	18.87 ± 1.80	22.63 ± 2.48	19.90 ± 2.60	15.53 ± 4.85	135.05 ± 15.27
F	4.638	3.846	4.93	3.03	2.53	1.29	4.667
P	0.01	0.022	0.007	0.049	0.08	0.277	0.01
Professional ranks and titles
Nurse	25.31 ± 3.26	29.75 ± 4.07	17.88 ± 2.63	21.98 ± 3.73	20.71 ± 3.42	15.80 ± 3.97	131.44 ± 15.23
Nurse practitioner	25.07 ± 3.55	29.52 ± 4.43	17.44 ± 2.97	21.10 ± 4.05	19.57 ± 3.83	16.33 ± 4.21	129.03 ± 16.27
Nurse in charge	25.47 ± 3.01	30.00 ± 3.87	17.92 ± 2.56	21.18 ± 3.66	19.48 ± 3.41	16.38 ± 4.12	130.44 ± 13.17
Deputy chief nurse and above	25.93 ± 2.84	29.20 ± 3.47	17.60 ± 2.29	21.40 ± 3.20	18.87 ± 3.11	16.20 ± 4.72	129.20 ± 12.73
F	0.777	0.556	1.63	2.37	5.51	0.85	1.116
P	0.507	0.644	0.181	0.07	0.001	0.467	0.342
Marital status
Unmarried	25.46 ± 3.25	29.70 ± 4.05	17.77 ± 2.49	21.67 ± 3.70	20.34 ± 3.57	16.10 ± 4.02	131.05 ± 13.96
Married	25.12 ± 3.33	29.69 ± 4.18	17.65 ± 2.86	21.22 ± 3.91	19.61 ± 3.63	16.25 ± 4.14	129.54 ± 15.46
Divorce or separation	25.70 ± 5.48	29.10 ± 7.52	16.40 ± 5.08	21.10 ± 5.72	19.70 ± 5.31	15.60 ± 6.45	127.60 ± 32.04
F	0.92	0.1	1.22	1.13	3.33	0.21	0.918
P	0.399	0.905	0.297	0.325	0.036	0.813	0.4
Night shifts
No	25.85 ± 3.05	30.18 ± 3.99	18.15 ± 2.52	21.19 ± 3.98	19.81 ± 3.69	16.25 ± 4.14	131.99 ± 14.58
Yes	24.95 ± 3.44	29.44 ± 4.27	17.45 ± 2.87	21.77 ± 3.60	19.99 ± 3.55	16.05 ± 4.12	129.10 ± 15.52
t	3.412	2.204	3.31	−1.88	−0.64	0.63	2.383
P	0.001	0.028	0.001	0.06	0.522	0.531	0.017
Weekly overtime hours
No overtime	25.18 ± 3.64	29.22 ± 4.48	17.75 ± 2.90	21.78 ± 3.97	20.19 ± 3.53	14.69 ± 4.64	128.82 ± 16.42
≤5	25.05 ± 3.35	29.63 ± 4.19	17.67 ± 2.87	21.38 ± 3.76	20.10 ± 3.63	15.95 ± 3.93	129.78 ± 15.45
6–10	24.97 ± 3.06	29.48 ± 3.45	17.65 ± 2.45	21.06 ± 3.67	19.44 ± 3.34	16.86 ± 4.19	129.46 ± 13.21
>10	25.90 ± 3.39	30.32 ± 4.47	17.68 ± 2.97	21.51 ± 4.17	19.89 ± 4.07	16.66 ± 3.68	131.96 ± 16.55
F	2.919	1.931	0.04	0.94	1.54	7.83	1.237
P	0.033	0.123	0.991	0.421	0.204	<0.001	0.295

Table 5

Correlation between C-SAQ and operating room nurses' cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting (r value).

Project		Teamwork climate	Safety climate	Perceptions of management	Job satisfaction	Working conditions	Stress recognition	Report cognition	Implement intention	Department culture	Punishment environmental science	Administration expect	Total score of cognition and attitudes of adverse event reporting	C-saq total score
Teamwork climate	r	1	0.316∗∗	0.372∗∗	0.316∗∗	0.348∗∗	0.328∗∗	0.360∗∗	0.306∗∗	0.294∗∗	0.287∗∗	−0.042	0.664∗∗	0.357∗∗
	P		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.259	<0.001	<0.001
Safety climate	r	0.316∗∗	1	0.625∗∗	0.526∗∗	0.269∗∗	0.279∗∗	0.326∗∗	0.265∗∗	0.246∗∗	0.191∗∗	−0.132∗∗	0.739∗∗	0.271∗∗
	P	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Perceptions of management	r	0.372∗∗	0.625∗∗	1	0.732∗∗	0.344∗∗	0.377∗∗	0.457∗∗	0.392∗∗	0.413∗∗	0.346∗∗	−0.208∗∗	0.850∗∗	0.410∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Job Satisfaction	R	0.316∗∗	0.526∗∗	0.732∗∗	1	0.165∗∗	0.300∗∗	0.344∗∗	0.292∗∗	0.332∗∗	0.290∗∗	−0.258∗∗	0.742∗∗	0.297∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Working conditions	r	0.348∗∗	0.269∗∗	0.344∗∗	0.165∗∗	1	0.237∗∗	0.244∗∗	0.232∗∗	0.192∗∗	0.143∗∗	0.045	0.612∗∗	0.256∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.227	<0.001	<0.001
Stress recognition	r	0.328∗∗	0.279∗∗	0.377∗∗	0.300	0.237∗∗	1	0.675∗∗	0.564∗∗	0.554∗∗	0.527∗∗	−0.150∗∗	0.423∗∗	0.732∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Report cognition	r	0.360∗∗	0.326∗∗	0.457∗∗	0.344∗∗	0.244∗∗	0.675∗∗	1	0.763∗∗	0.704∗∗	0.661∗∗	−0.105∗∗	0.481∗∗	0.869∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.005	<0.001	<0.001
Implement intention	r	0.306∗∗	0.265∗∗	0.392∗∗	0.292∗∗	0.232∗∗	0.564∗∗	0.763∗∗	1	0.795∗∗	0.703∗∗	−0.084∗∗	0.415∗∗	0.861∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	0.025	<0.001	<0.001
Department culture	r	0.294∗∗	0.246∗∗	0.413∗∗	0.332∗∗	0.192∗∗	0.554∗∗	0.704∗∗	0.795∗∗	1	0.736∗∗	−0.124∗∗	0.411∗∗	0.855∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Punishment environmental science	r	0.287∗∗	0.191∗∗	0.346∗∗	0.290∗∗	0.143∗∗	0.527∗∗	0.661∗∗	0.703∗∗	0.736∗∗	1	−0.142∗∗	0.349∗∗	0.811∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Administration expect	r	−0.042	−0.132∗∗	−0.208∗∗	−0.258∗∗	0.045	−0.150∗∗	−0.105∗∗	−0.084∗∗	−0.124∗∗	−0.142∗∗	1	−0.157∗∗	0.128∗∗
	P	0.259	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.227	<0.001	0.005	0.025	0.001	<0.001		<0.001	0.001
Total score of cognition and attitudes of adverse event reporting	r	0.664∗∗	0.739∗∗	0.850∗∗	0.742∗∗	0.612∗∗	0.423∗∗	0.481∗∗	0.415∗∗	0.411∗∗	0.349∗∗	−0.157∗∗	1	0.445∗∗
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001
C-SAQ total score	r	0.357∗∗	0.271∗∗	0.410∗∗	0.297∗∗	0.256∗∗	0.732∗∗	0.869∗∗	0.861∗∗	0.855∗∗	0.811∗∗	0.128∗∗	0.445∗∗	1
	P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	<0.001

Note. P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01.

Table 6

Independent variable assignment of factors influencing C-SAQ of operating room nurses.

Research variables	Assignment
Safety culture score	Continuous variable
Age group	1 = ≤25 year, 2 = 26–35 year, 3 = 36–45 year, 4 ≥ 45 year
Length of service in the operating room	1 = ≤3 year, 2 = 4–10 year, 3 ≥ 10 year
Mode of employment	1 = Contract system, 2 = Fixed establishment
Initial education	1 = Secondary specialized school, 2 = Junior college, 3 = Bachelor degree or above
Final education	1 = Secondary specialized school, 2 = Junior college, 3 = Bachelor degree or above
Post	1 = Nurse practitioner, 2 = Teaching teacher, 3 = Head nurse and above
Title	1 = Nurse, 2 = Nurse practitioner, 3 = Nurse in charge, 4 = Deputy chief nurse and above
Marital status	1 = Unmarried, 2 = Married, 3 = Divorce or separation
Night shifts	0 = No, 1 = Yes
Weekly overtime hours	1 = No overtime, 2 = ≤5 hours, 3 = 6–10 hours, 4 ≥ 10
Score of adverse event scale	Continuous variable

Table 7

Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis of safety attitudes of operating room nurses (n = 711).

Independent variable	Partial regression coefficient		Standardization Partial regression coefficient	t	P	Partial regression coefficient 95% CI
	β	Standard error
(Constant)	84.346	5.767		14.625	<0.001	73.023–95.67
Age group	1.253	1.113	0.07	1.126	0.261	−0.932–3.437
Length of service in the operating room	−0.648	1.13	−0.033	−0.574	0.566	−2.866–1.57
Mode of employment	−0.632	1.69	-0.019	−0.374	0.708	−3.951–2.686
Initial education	0.159	1.096	0.005	0.145	0.885	−1.993–2.31
Final education	0.357	1.078	0.012	0.331	0.741	−1.76–2.474
Post	−1.017	1.109	−0.035	−0.918	0.359	−3.194–1.159
Title	−1.292	1.212	−0.065	−1.066	0.287	−3.672–1.088
Marital status	−1.595	1.365	−0.053	−1.169	0.243	−4.274–1.085
Night shifts	−3.213	1.233	−0.099	−2.606	0.009	−5.634–0.792
Weekly overtime hours	0.431	0.535	0.028	0.805	0.421	−0.619–1.481
Score of adverse event scale	0.482	0.037	0.44	12.855	<0.001	0.408–0.556

This paper described the safety attitude of the operating room nurses from 16 tertiary class A hospitals in Sichuan Province, China. The results showed that the nurses in the operating room had a positive attitude toward safety. The cognition and attitudes toward night shifts and adverse event reporting were the main influencing factors of the safety attitude of operating room nurses.

The results of this paper showed that the positive reaction rate of the total score of operating room nurses' safety attitudes was >80%, indicating that the operating room nurses of tertiary class A hospitals had a positive safety culture, which was similar to those of previously reported studies conducted in Turkey [11, 14]. Patient safety is a common concern of global healthcare. While hospital managers are concerned about patient safety, health departments worldwide have been committed to continuously enhancing patient safety. Armutlu et al. [15] believe that hospital managers play a major role in creating and developing a safety culture and climate. At present, patient safety and adverse events have become a research hotspot in the field of nursing management in China. Nursing managers' perspective on safety management has also changed, and their positive safety attitudes directly affect the safety attitude and belief of the whole nursing team. On the other hand, the average education level of nurses in China's tertiary class A hospitals is higher than that of other hospitals. Although the present study did not find any influence of education on the safety attitude of operating room nurses, Zhang et al. [16] showed that nursing managers with high education levels had higher stress recognition. Audet et al. [17] also proposed that the education level of medical staff may be a factor affecting patient safety, which might be related to strong learning ability, comprehensive knowledge base, and active thinking of highly educated individuals. In addition, in recent years, Chinese patients have been increasingly aware of safeguarding their rights. Moreover, the Internet has reduced the information inequality between doctors and patients, and the increase in patients' complaints has also promoted the safety management of hospitals.

Evidence [18] has indicated that a positive response rate >80% is an advantage, a rate between 50 and 79% indicates a need for improvement, while a rate <50% suggests urgent improvement required. In this paper, the parameters with high positive reaction rates are teamwork climate, perceptions of management, and safety climate, which are consistent with the results of Yu et al. [19] and Ramos and Calidgid [8]. The domains to be improved in the safety attitude of operating room nurses were stress recognition and working conditions. The operating room is characterized by great pressure and a high workload. Today, the increasing operations in tertiary class A hospitals and the growing demand for nursing cooperation have led to increased susceptibility of operating room nurses to adverse work pressure reactions. The tense working environment causes a negative impact on the nurses and patients, which is manifested as an increased rate of infection or patient mortality [20]. Yalçın Akgul and Aksoy [21] showed that increased organizational stress of operating room staff may negatively affect their attitudes toward patient safety, suggesting that reducing the pressure of operating room staff may be conducive to improving patient safety. According to previous studies [22], a healthy working environment can improve nurses' job satisfaction and reduce work pressure and fatigue, contributing to high-quality nursing. Also, it is suggested that managers should not ignore the negative influence of nursing staff on patient safety due to work pressure. Liu et al. [23] proposed that reasonable allocation and organizational support of nursing resources are directly related to improving patient safety. Therefore, we can reasonably allocate human resources, implement hierarchical management and postmanagement, and arrange the work of nurses according to their work experience, professional title, ability, and personality traits, so that they can relieve certain pressures through team cooperation and communication. On the other hand, psychological training can be conducted to improve nursing staff's ability to adapt to pressure and help them to better manage and relieve pressure.

In the present study, the score of the working condition dimension was the lowest. It is shown that some operating room nurses in tertiary class A hospitals in China believe that the current human resource allocation is insufficient and there are potential safety hazards [24]. The correlation between nurse staffing and patient safety is evident. As nursing care increases, so does the risk, incidence rate, and even death rate of patients. Even if the overall allocation of nursing staff is adequate, the acceleration of patient turnover increases the risk of patient safety and death [25, 26]. According to a previous study in Holland [27], the role of nurses in clinical work, nursing behavior, and nursing autonomy are closely related to manpower allocation. Nurses differ from doctors in their role, clinical behavior, thinking mode, decision-making power, and information transmission. But autonomy can help nurses to carry out satisfactory activities in the nursing management and multidisciplinary teamwork [28]. European and American countries are gradually increasing the professionalism and autonomy of nurses while nurses generally lack autonomy in China's medical system. Increasing the allocation of nurses to improve patient expectations and reduce adverse events cannot address patient safety. To ensure the quality of medical care, it is necessary to ensure the full availability of human, property, material, and other resources [29]. Therefore, it is suggested that the managers should appropriately increase the allocation of nursing staff and logistic support in the operating room. With the gradual improvement of staffing, economic incentives can be used to stimulate the enthusiasm of the nursing staff.

In this paper, the median night shift and the cognition and attitudes toward adverse event reporting were the main factors influencing the safety attitude of operating room nurses. Night shift operating room nurses scored lower on patient safety attitudes than nonnight shift operating room nurses, which was similar to the research results of D'Oliveira and Anagnostopoulos and Roelen et al. [30, 31]. Nurses on night shifts have less manpower, great responsibility, and high risk, with irregular life and long-term sleep deprivation, which is susceptible to job burnout that affects personal health, memory, and mental function performance, leading to low safety attitude scores. In the United States, there is little variation in the number of day and night shifts in various departments of hospitals, and there are specialized night nurses [32]. Therefore, nursing managers should provide humanistic care for night shift nurses, arrange the night shifts scientifically and rationally, and employ an incentive mechanism to arouse the enthusiasm of night shift nurses, so as to provide 24-hour uninterrupted high-quality nursing for patients.

The cognition and attitudes of operating room nurses toward adverse event reporting and also the main factors influencing the safety attitude were positively correlated with operating room nurses' safety attitudes. Relevant studies [8, 33] also showed a low reporting rate of adverse events by nurses. Atwal et al. [34] recommend that organizations with a strong patient safety culture adopt a positive attitude toward incident reporting. Nurses' indecision in reporting adverse events might be related to a widespread culture of punitive responses and blame for errors. They fear being held accountable and punished by their superiors and are less motivated to report adverse events [8]. Although the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist can effectively improve the safety of patients with a high acceptance among the medical staff, there is still a gap in the awareness of when to use the checklist, which suggests that medical managers can provide training on adverse event reporting for operating room nurses to improve their awareness [35-37]. In addition, the adverse event reporting rate is closely related to the adverse event reporting process and feedback mechanism [21]. Thus, it is suggested that managers establish a fair, open, communicative, and nonpunitive adverse events reporting culture, optimize the reporting process, and train the nursing staff to master the reporting process so that the personnel are willing to report promptly and accept the errors and problems calmly [38, 39]. Only when the staff exhibits satisfactory cognition and attitudes to the adverse event report can they understand and prevent the errors in nursing work.

5. Conclusion

This paper confirmed that nurses in the operating room of the tertiary class A hospitals in Chengdu, China, had a positive attitude toward safety, but their stress recognition and working conditions needed improvement. Thus, nursing managers should optimize the allocation of nursing human resources in the operating room, strengthen logistics support, and establish a fair and nonpunitive adverse event reporting system to create a safety climate and enhance the nurses' safety attitudes and beliefs.

This paper only investigated the safety culture of some tertiary hospitals in Western China but not other secondary and community hospitals, which limited the popularization of the study results. Second, the safety attitude of nurses who participated in this study might be influenced by society and institutions, which in turn affects the responses to some questionnaires.