156
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is widespread interest in measuring healthcare provider attitudes about issues relevant to patient safety (often called safety climate or safety culture). Here we report the psychometric properties, establish benchmarking data, and discuss emerging areas of research with the University of Texas Safety Attitudes Questionnaire.

          Methods

          Six cross-sectional surveys of health care providers (n = 10,843) in 203 clinical areas (including critical care units, operating rooms, inpatient settings, and ambulatory clinics) in three countries (USA, UK, New Zealand). Multilevel factor analyses yielded results at the clinical area level and the respondent nested within clinical area level. We report scale reliability, floor/ceiling effects, item factor loadings, inter-factor correlations, and percentage of respondents who agree with each item and scale.

          Results

          A six factor model of provider attitudes fit to the data at both the clinical area and respondent nested within clinical area levels. The factors were: Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate, Perceptions of Management, Job Satisfaction, Working Conditions, and Stress Recognition. Scale reliability was 0.9. Provider attitudes varied greatly both within and among organizations. Results are presented to allow benchmarking among organizations and emerging research is discussed.

          Conclusion

          The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire demonstrated good psychometric properties. Healthcare organizations can use the survey to measure caregiver attitudes about six patient safety-related domains, to compare themselves with other organizations, to prompt interventions to improve safety attitudes and to measure the effectiveness of these interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring patient safety climate: a review of surveys.

          Five years ago the Institute of Medicine recommended improving patient safety by addressing organizational cultural issues. Since then, surveys measuring a patient safety climate considered predictive of health outcomes have begun to emerge. This paper compares the general characteristics, dimensions covered, psychometrics performed, and uses in studies of patient safety climate surveys. Systematic literature review. Nine surveys were found that measured the patient safety climate of an organization. All used Likert scales, mostly to measure attitudes of individuals. Nearly all covered five common dimensions of patient safety climate: leadership, policies and procedures, staffing, communication, and reporting. The strength of psychometric testing varied. While all had been used to compare units within or between hospitals, only one had explored the association between organizational climate and patient outcomes. Patient safety climate surveys vary considerably. Achievement of a culture conducive to patient safety may be an admirable goal in its own right, but more effort should be expended on understanding the relationship between measures of patient safety climate and patient outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            MISSING DATA: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR APPLIED PSYCHOLOGISTS

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys.

              To survey operating theatre and intensive care unit staff about attitudes concerning error, stress, and teamwork and to compare these attitudes with those of airline cockpit crew. : Cross sectional surveys. : Urban teaching and non-teaching hospitals in the United States, Israel, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Major airlines around the world. : 1033 doctors, nurses, fellows, and residents working in operating theatres and intensive care units and over 30 000 cockpit crew members (captains, first officers, and second officers). : Perceptions of error, stress, and teamwork. : Pilots were least likely to deny the effects of fatigue on performance (26% v 70% of consultant surgeons and 47% of consultant anaesthetists). Most pilots (97%) and intensive care staff (94%) rejected steep hierarchies (in which senior team members are not open to input from junior members), but only 55% of consultant surgeons rejected such hierarchies. High levels of teamwork with consultant surgeons were reported by 73% of surgical residents, 64% of consultant surgeons, 39% of anaesthesia consultants, 28% of surgical nurses, 25% of anaesthetic nurses, and 10% of anaesthetic residents. Only a third of staff reported that errors are handled appropriately at their hospital. A third of intensive care staff did not acknowledge that they make errors. Over half of intensive care staff reported that they find it difficult to discuss mistakes. Medical staff reported that error is important but difficult to discuss and not handled well in their hospital. Barriers to discussing error are more important since medical staff seem to deny the effect of stress and fatigue on performance. Further problems include differing perceptions of teamwork among team members and reluctance of senior theatre staff to accept input from junior members.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                2006
                3 April 2006
                : 6
                : 44
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The University of Texas Center of Excellence for Patient Safety Research and Practice, The University of Texas – Houston Medical School, Houston, USA
                [2 ]Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco, USA
                [3 ]Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
                [4 ]Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3LJ, UK
                [5 ]Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ; University of Texas – Houston Medical School, Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine (EJT), USA
                Article
                1472-6963-6-44
                10.1186/1472-6963-6-44
                1481614
                16584553
                706b0654-cd60-497f-a85b-d063ad2bf06f
                Copyright © 2006 Sexton et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 August 2005
                : 3 April 2006
                Categories
                Research Article

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article