Development and validation of a patient-report measure of safety climate for general practice

Factors determining safety culture in hospitals: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and synthesise the factors determining patient safety culture in hospitals.

METHODS

The scoping review protocol was based on the criteria of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) empirical study published in a peer-reviewed journal; (2) used methods or tools to assess, study or measure safety culture or climate; (3) data collected in the hospital setting and (4) studies published in English. Relevant literature was located using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed using RStudio and the R interface for multidimensional analysis of texts and questionnaires (IRaMuTeQ).

RESULTS

A total of 248 primary studies were included. The most used instruments for assessing safety culture were the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (n=104) and the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (n=63). The Maslach Burnout Inventory (n=13) and Culture Assessment Scales based on patient perception (n=9) were used in association with cultural instruments. Sixty-six articles were included in the qualitative analysis. In word cloud and similarity analyses, the words 'communication' and 'leadership' were most prominent. Regarding the descending hierarchical classification analysis, the content was categorised into two main classes, one of which was subdivided into five subclasses: class 1a: job satisfaction and leadership (15.56%), class 1b: error response (22.22%), class 1c: psychological and empowerment nurses (20.00%), class 1d: trust culture (22.22%) and class 2: innovation worker (20.00%).

CONCLUSION

The instruments presented elements that remained indispensable for assessing the safety culture, such as leadership commitment, open communication and learning from mistakes. There was also a tendency for research to assess patient and family engagement, psychological safety, nurses' engagement in decision-making and innovation.

Patients' perception of safety climate in Irish general practice: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Although patients have the potential to provide important information on patient safety, considerably fewer patient-report measures of safety climate (SC) have been applied in the primary care setting as compared to secondary care. Our aim was to examine the application of a patient-report measure of safety climate in an Irish population to understand patient perceptions of safety in general practice and identify potential areas for improvement. Specifically, our research questions were: 1. What are patients' perceptions of SC in Irish general practice? 2. Do patient risk factors impact perceptions of SC? 3. Do patient responses to an open-ended question about safety enhance our understanding of patient safety beyond that obtained from a quantitative measure of SC?

METHODS

The Patient Perspective of Safety in General Practice (PPS-GP) survey was distributed to primary care patients in Ireland. The survey consisted of both Likert-response items, and free-text entry questions in relation to the safety of care. A series of five separate hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relationship between a range of patient-related variables and each of the survey subscales. A deductive content analysis approach was used to code the free-text responses.

RESULTS

A total of 584 completed online and paper surveys were received. Respondents generally had positive perceptions of safety across all five SC subscales of the PPS-GP. Regarding patient risk factors, younger age and being of non-Irish nationality were consistently associated with more negative SC perceptions. Analysis of the free-text responses revealed considerably poorer patient perceptions (n = 85, 65.4%) of the safety experience in primary care.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that despite being under-utilised, patients' perceptions are a valuable source of information for measuring SC, with promising implications for safety improvement in general practice. Further consideration should be given to how best to utilise this data in order to improve safety in primary care.

A meta-review of methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care

Background

A major barrier to safety improvement in primary care is a lack of safety data. The aims of this systematic meta-review (registration: CRD42021224367) were to identify systematic reviews of studies that examine methods of measuring and monitoring safety in primary care; classify the methods of measuring and monitoring safety in the included systematic reviews using the five safety domains of Vincent et al.’s framework and use this information to make recommendations for improving the measurement and monitoring of safety in primary care.

Methods

Four databases (Medline, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science and CINAHL) and the grey literature were screened in November 2020, with searches updated in January 2021. Systematic reviews were included if they addressed the measurement of patient safety in primary care and were published in English. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews.

Results

A total of 6904 papers were screened, with 13 systematic reviews included. A commonly reported method of measuring ‘past harm’ was through patient record review. The most frequent methods for assessing the ‘reliability of safety critical processes’ were checklists, observations and surveys of staff. Methods used to assess ‘sensitivity to operations’ included observation, staff surveys, interviews, focus groups, active monitoring and simulated patients. Safety climate surveys were a commonly used as an approach to assess ‘anticipation and preparedness’. A number of the reviews concluded that safety data could, and should, be used for ‘integration and learning’. The main limitation of the meta-review was that it was of systematic reviews only.

Conclusions

Many of the methods for measuring and monitoring safety are readily available, quick to administer, do not require external involvement and are inexpensive. However, there is still a need to improve the psychometric properties of many measures. Researchers must support the development of psychometrically sound safety measures that do not over burden primary care practitioners. Policymakers must consider how primary care practitioners can be supported to implement these measures.