Dimensions of safety culture: A systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods for assessing safety culture in hospitals

Background The study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods to assess safety culture in hospitals, analyse the prevalence of these methods in the published research literature and examine the dimensions of safety culture captured through these processes. Methods We included studies reporting on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to assess safety culture in hospitals. The review was conducted using four academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) with studies from January 2008 to May 2020. A formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Study purpose, type of method and safety culture dimensions were extracted from all studies, coded thematically, and summarised narratively and using descriptive statistics where appropriate. Results A total of 694 studies were included. A third (n=244, 35.2%) had a descriptive or exploratory purpose, 225 (32.4%) tested relationships among variables, 129 (18.6%) evaluated an intervention, while 13.8% (n=96) had a methodological focus. Most studies exclusively used surveys (n=663; 95.5%), with 88 different surveys identified. Only 31 studies (4.5%) used qualitative or mixed methods. Thematic analysis identified 11 themes related to safety culture dimensions across the methods, with € Leadership' being the most common. Qualitative and mixed methods approaches were more likely to identify additional dimensions of safety culture not covered by the 11 themes, including improvisation and contextual pressures. Discussion We assessed the extent to which safety culture dimensions mapped to specific quantitative and qualitative tools and methods of assessing safety culture. No single method or tool appeared to measure all 11 themes of safety culture. Risk of publication bias was high in this review. Future attempts to assess safety culture in hospitals should consider incorporating qualitative methods into survey studies to evaluate this multi-faceted construct

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries

Background In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice. Methods The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt. Results Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions. Conclusions Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard

Assessing the appropriateness of the management of upper respiratory tract infection in Australian children: a population-based sample survey

OBJECTIVE:To assess the proportion of Australian children aged 0-15 years that received care in line with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). DESIGN:Retrospective medical record review using a multistage sampling strategy. SETTING:General practices, hospital emergency departments and hospital inpatient service providers in three Australian states. PARTICIPANTS:Children aged up to 15 years who received care for URTI in 2012 and 2013. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary assessment was estimated adherence with 14 indicators of appropriate care as documented in medical records. Indicators were extracted from national and international CPGs and ratified by experts. Secondary assessment was adherence to two bundles of indicators (diagnostic symptoms and medical history taking), where all indicators must be adherent for the bundle to be scored as adherent. RESULTS:There were 1653 children with one or more assessments of URTI care to CPG adherence. Over half of the children were under 3 years of age, with roughly equal numbers of males and females. Three indicators had fewer than 25 visits so were not reported. Overall adherence ranged from 0.5% for 'documented advice around antibiotics' to 88.3% for 'documentation of medical history'. Adherence with Bundle A (documentation of all three definitive symptoms) was 43.1% (95% CI 32.8% to 54.0%) and Bundle B (documentation of all four indicators of medical history) was 30.2% (95% CI 20.9% to 40.9%). CONCLUSIONS:URTIs in children are common, usually self-limiting, conditions that are allocated considerable resources. The results suggest that there may be a need for more thorough holistic assessment of the patient and improved documentation. Since inappropriate prescription of antibiotics for URTIs is still a known problem in Australia, there is a need for consistent, clear communication around antibiotics' lack of impact on symptoms and a high association with undesirable side effects.Janet C Long, Helena M Williams, Shefali Jani, Gaston Arnolda, Hsuen P Ting, Charlotte J Molloy ... et al

Implementation of large, multi-site hospital interventions: a realist evaluation of strategies for developing capability

<Background This study presents guidelines for implementation distilled from the findings of a realist evaluation. The setting was local health districts in New South Wales, Australia that implemented three clinical improvement initiatives as part of a state-wide program. We focussed on implementation strategies designed to develop health professionals’ capability to deliver value-based care initiatives for multisite programs. Capability, which increases implementers’ ability to cope with unexpected scenarios is key to managing change. Methods We used a mixed methods realist evaluation which tested and refined program theories elucidating the complex dynamic between context (C), mechanism (M) and outcome (O) to determine what works, for whom, under what circumstances. Data was drawn from program documents, a realist synthesis, informal discussions with implementation designers, and interviews with 10 key informants (out of 37 identified) from seven sites. Data analysis employed a retroductive approach to interrogate the causal factors identified as contributors to outcomes. Results CMO statements were refined for four initial program theories: Making it Relevant– where participation in activities was increased when targeted to the needs of the staff; Investment in Quality Improvement– where engagement in capability development was enhanced when it was valued by all levels of the organisation; Turnover and Capability Loss– where the effects of staff turnover were mitigated; and Community-Wide Priority– where there was a strategy of spanning sites. From these data five guiding principles for implementers were distilled: (1) Involve all levels of the health system to effectively implement large-scale capability development, (2) Design capability development activities in a way that supports a learning culture, (3) Plan capability development activities with staff turnover in mind, (4) Increased capability should be distributed across teams to avoid bottlenecks in workflows and the risk of losing key staff, (5) Foster cross-site collaboration to focus effort, reduce variation in practice and promote greater cohesion in patient care. Conclusions A key implementation strategy for interventions to standardise high quality practice is development of clinical capability. We illustrate how leadership support, attention to staff turnover patterns, and making activities relevant to current issues, can lead to an emergent learning culture