Patient safety challenges in a case study hospital--of relevance for transfusion processes?

Leading Quality and Safety on the Frontline - A Case Study of Department Leaders in Nursing Homes

Purpose

The role of healthcare leaders is becoming increasingly complex, and carries great responsibility for patients, employees, and the quality of service delivery. This study explored the barriers and enablers that department leaders in nursing homes encounter when managing the dual responsibilities in Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) and Quality and Patient Safety (QPS).

Methodology

Case study design with data collected through semi structured interviews with 16 department leaders in five Norwegian municipalities. We analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Data analysis resulted in four themes explaining what department leaders in nursing homes experience as barriers and enablers when handling the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS: Temporal capacity: The importance of having enough time to create a health-promoting work environment that ensures patient safety. Relational capacity: Relationships have an impact on work process and outcomes. Professional competence: Competence affects patient safety and leadership strategies. Organizational structure: Organizational frameworks influence how the dual responsibilities are handled.

Conclusion

Evidence from this study showed that external contextual factors (eg, legislations and finances) and internal factors (eg, relationships and expectations) are experienced as barriers and enablers when department leaders are enacting the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS. Of these, relationships were found to be the most significant contributor.

Managing patient safety and staff safety in nursing homes: exploring how leaders of nursing homes negotiate their dual responsibilities-a case study

Objective

Within healthcare, the role of leader is becoming more complex, and healthcare leaders carry an increasing responsibility for the performance of employees, the experience and safety of patients and the quality of care provision. This study aimed to explore how leaders of nursing homes manage the dual responsibility of both Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) and Quality and Patient Safety (QPS), focusing particularly on the approaches leaders take and the dilemmas they face. In addition, we wanted to examine how leaders experience and manage the challenges of HSE and QPS in a holistic way.

Design/setting

The study was designed as a case study. Data were collected through semi structured individual interviews with leaders of nursing homes in five Norwegian municipalities.

Participants

13 leaders of nursing homes in urban and rural municipalities participated in this study.

Results

Data analysis resulted in four themes explaining how leaders of nursing homes manage the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS, and the approaches they take and the dilemmas they face: 1.Establishing good systems and building a culture for a work environment that promotes health and patient safety.2.Establish channels for internal and external collaboration and communication.3.Establish room for maneuver to exercise leadership.4.Recognizing and having the mandate to handle possible tensions in the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS.

Conclusions

The study showed that leaders of nursing homes who are responsible for ensuring quality and safety for both patients and staff, experience tensions in handling this dual responsibility. They acknowledged the importance of having time to be present as a leader, to have robust systems to maintain HSE and QPS, and that conflicting aspects of legislation are an everyday challenge.

Healthcare leaders' and elected politicians' approach to support-systems and requirements for complying with quality and safety regulation in nursing homes - a case study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare leaders play an important and complex role in managing and handling the dual responsibility of both Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) for workers and quality and patient safety (QPS). There is a need for better understanding of how healthcare leaders and decision makers organize and create support structures to handle these combined responsibilities in practice. The aim of this study was to explore how healthcare leaders and elected politicians organize, control, and follow up the work of HSE and QPS in a Norwegian nursing home context. Moreover, we explore how they interpret, negotiate, and manage the dual responsibility and possible tensions between employee health and safety, and patient safety and quality of service delivery.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 2022 as a case study exploring the experience of healthcare leaders and elected politicians in five municipalities responsible for providing nursing homes services in Norway. Elected politicians (18) and healthcare leaders (11) participated in focus group interviews (5) and individual interviews (11). Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified five main themes explaining how the healthcare leaders and elected politicians organize, control, and follow up the work of HSE and QPS: 1. Establish frameworks and room for maneuver in the work with HSE and QPS. 2. Create good routines and channels for communication and collaboration. 3. Build a culture for a health-promoting work environment and patient safety. 4. Create systems to handle the possible tensions in the dual responsibility between caring for employees and quality and safety in service delivery. 5. Define clear boundaries in responsibility between politics and administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that healthcare leaders and elected politicians who are responsible for ensuring sound systems for quality and safety for both patients and staff, do experience tensions in handling this dual responsibility. They acknowledge the need to create systems and awareness for the responsibility and argue that there is a need to better separate the roles and boundaries between elected politicians and the healthcare administration in the execution of HSE and QPS.

Use of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture in Norwegian Hospitals: A Systematic Review

This review aims to provide an overview of empirical studies using the HSOPSC in Norway and to develop recommendations for further research on patient safety culture. Oria, an online catalogue of scientific databases, was searched for patient safety culture in February 2021. In addition, three articles were identified via Google Scholar searches. Out of 113 retrieved articles, a total of 20 articles were included in our review. These were divided into three categories: seven perception studies, six intervention studies, and seven reliability and validation studies. The first study conducted in Norway indicated a need to improve patient safety culture. Only one intervention study was able to substantially improve patient safety culture. The validity of HSOPSC is supported in most studies. However, one study indicated poor quality in relation to the testing of criteria related to validity. This review is limited to Norwegian healthcare but has several relevant implications across the research field, namely that intervention studies should (1) validate dimensions more carefully, (2) avoid pitfalls related to both factor analysis methods and criteria validity testing, (3) consider integrating structural models into multilevel improvement programs, and (4) benefit from applying different, new versions of HSOPSC developed in Norway.

The relationship between patient safety climate and occupational safety climate in healthcare - A multi-level investigation

INTRODUCTION

Patient safety climate/culture is attracting increasing research interest, but there is little research on its relation with organizational climates regarding other target domains. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between patient safety climate and occupational safety climate in healthcare.

METHOD

The climates were assessed using two questionnaires: Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture and Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire. The final sample consisted of 1154 nurses, 886 assistant nurses, and 324 physicians, organized in 150 work units, within hospitals (117units), primary healthcare (5units) and elderly care (28units) in western Sweden, which represented 56% of the original sample contacted.

RESULTS

Within each type of safety climate, two global dimensions were confirmed in a higher order factor analysis; one with an external focus relative the own unit, and one with an internal focus. Two methods were used to estimate the covariation between the global climate dimensions, in order to minimize the influence of bias from common method variance. First multilevel analysis was used for partitioning variances and covariances in a within unit part (individual level) and a between unit part (unit level). Second, a split sample technique was used to calculate unit level correlations based on aggregated observations from different respondents. Both methods showed associations similar in strength between the patient safety climate and the occupational safety climate domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that patient safety climate and occupational safety climate are strongly positively related at the unit level, and that the same organizational processes may be important for the development of both types of organizational climate.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Safety improvement interventions should not be separated in different organizational processes, but be planned so that both patient safety and staff safety are considered concomitantly.