Measuring a Safety Culture: Critical Pathway or Academic Activity?

he Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified six core needs in a health care system, the first of which was safety. 1 Furthermore, several IOM committees and others have identified the creation of a “culture of safety ” as the key institutional requirement to achieve safe medical care. 1–3 In this issue of the journal, Modak et al. 4 present an instrument that may help measure the extent to which a patient safety culture exists in an ambulatory setting. While these authors and others have done considerable work on defining and measuring a culture of safety in the hospital setting, 5,6 few have tackled the difficult task of measuring a safety culture in the ambulatory arena within the US health care system. Even in the hospital setting, where there has been more effort, the development of a culture of safety within all US hospitals has been spotty and, for some safety advocates, too slow. 7 There are many potential reasons for the poor progress in developing a culture of safety: confusion about the difference between safety and quality, concerns that increasing safety will further erode profits, or perhaps simply a lack of attention by institutional leaders. Whatever the reasons for the slow pace of transformation across the nation’s 5,000-plus hospitals, it is likely that this transformation will be even more difficult to achieve in the much larger and more diverse ambulatory setting. Thus, it is important to define and measure an ambulatory culture of safety. It is also difficult, perhaps impossible, to change beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, or actions (all components of a “culture”) without some form of feedback. Therefore, a necessary step in creating a culture of safety is to develop tools to measure the components of that culture. For those individuals and institutions that wish to truly improve the safety of the care they deliver, the creation and testing of tools such as the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire-Ambulatory (SAQ-A) version is critical. Beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge do not always lend themselves to clear-cut end points. Thus, we can expect to see more than one safety culture measuremen

Gender and age differences among current smokers in a general population survey

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a higher proportion of current smokers among female than among male ever smokers at the age above 50. However, little is known about the proportion of current smokers among ever smokers in old age groups with consideration of women in comparison to men from general population samples. The goal was to analyze the proportions of current smokers among female and among male ever smokers including those older than 80. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study with a national probability household sample in Germany. Data of 179,472 participants aged 10 or older were used based on face-to-face in-home interviews or questionnaires. The proportions of current smokers among ever smokers were analyzed dependent on age, age of onset of smoking and cigarettes per day including effect modification by gender. RESULTS: Proportions of current smokers tended to be larger among female than among male ever smokers aged 40 or above. Women compared to men showed adjusted odds ratios of 1.7 to 6.9 at ages 40 to 90 or older in contrast to men. No such interaction existed for age of onset of smoking or cigarettes per day. CONCLUSION: Special emphasis should be given to current smokers among the female general population at the age of 40 or above in public health intervention

Methodological Challenges of Multiple-Component Intervention: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Functional Recovery After Hip Fracture

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of a multiple-component intervention designed to improve functional recovery after hip fracture. One hundred seventy-six patients who underwent surgery for a primary unilateral hip fracture were assigned randomly to receive usual care (control arm, n = 86) or a brief motivational videotape, supportive peer counseling, and high-intensity muscle-strength training (intervention arm, n = 90). Between-group differences on the physical functioning, role-physical, and social functioning domains of the SF-36 were assessed postoperatively at 6 months. At the end of the trial, 32 intervention and 27 control patients (34%) completed the 6-month outcome assessment. Although patient compliance with all three components of the intervention was uneven, over 90% of intervention patients were exposed to the motivational videotape. Intervention patients experienced a significant (P = 0.03) improvement in the role-physical domain (mean change, −11 ± 33) compared to control patients (mean change, −37 ± 41). Change in general health (P = 0.2) and mental health (P = 0.1) domain scores was also directionally consistent with the study hypothesis. Although our findings are consistent with previous reports of comprehensive rehabilitation efforts for hip fracture patients, the trial was undermined by high attrition and the possibility of self-selection bias at 6-month follow-up. We discuss the methodological challenges and lessons learned in conducting a randomized controlled trial that sought to implement and assess the impact of a complex intervention in a population that proved difficult to follow up once they had returned to the community