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

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

The Elephant in the Room: Nurses’ Views of Communication Failure and Recommendations for Improvement in Perioperative Care

Perioperative communication failures endanger patient safety and may reduce efficiency. The objective of our phenomenological research study was to determine the reasons for and consequences of perioperative communication failures and to seek recommendations for improvement. Fourteen perioperative nurses participated in this study. We conducted in-depth interviews with a semi-structured questionnaire following Colaizzi's seven-step methodology to extract themes. We organized the themes into categories: causes, consequences, and recommendations for preventing communication failure. Some themes for causes were inadequate time for preoperative preparation, lack of personnel, and disruptive behaviors of physicians. Consequences of communication failure were decreased staff retention, avoidance of colleagues, threats to patient safety, and intra-team violence. Two recommendations included enforcing institutional regulations and creating team spirit. The study revealed that nurses believe that institutional regulations should not only be present but enforced. Further, nurses believe that strengthening employees’ interpersonal skills is essential to preventing communication issues

Patient Safety in Surgery

BACKGROUND: Improving patient safety is an increasing priority for surgeons and hospitals since sentinel events can be catastrophic for patients, caregivers, and institutions. Patient safety initiatives aimed at creating a safe operating room (OR) culture are increasingly being adopted, but a reliable means of measuring their impact on front-line providers does not exist. METHODS: We developed a surgery-specific safety questionnaire (SAQ) and administered it to 2769 eligible caregivers at 60 hospitals. Survey questions included the appropriateness of handling medical errors, knowledge of reporting systems, and perceptions of safety in the operating room. MANOVA and ANOVA were performed to compare safety results by hospital and by an individual's position in the OR using a composite score. Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was performed to validate the structure of the scale at the operating room level of analysis. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 77.1% (2135 of 2769), with a range of 57% to 100%. Factor analysis of the survey items demonstrated high face validity and internal consistency (α = 0.76). The safety climate scale was robust and internally consistent overall and across positions. Scores varied widely by hospital [MANOVA omnibus F (59, 1910) = 3.85, P < 0.001], but not position [ANOVA F (4, 1910) = 1.64, P = 0.16], surgeon (mean = 73.91), technician (mean = 70.26), anesthesiologist (mean = 71.57), CRNA (mean = 71.03), and nurse (mean = 70.40). The percent of respondents reporting good safety climate in each hospital ranged from 16.3% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Safety climate in surgical departments can be validly measured and varies widely among hospitals, providing the opportunity to benchmark performance. Scores on the SAQ can serve to evaluate interventions to improve patient safety