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

Author:

Churruca KateORCID,Ellis Louise AORCID,Pomare ChiaraORCID,Hogden AnneORCID,Bierbaum MiaORCID,Long Janet CORCID,Olekalns Aleksandra,Braithwaite JeffreyORCID

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.DiscussionWe 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.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference83 articles.

1. Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient safety in healthcare organizations;Nieva;Qual Saf Health Care,2003

2. Development and testing of Baylor Scott & White Health's "Attitudes and Practices of Patient Safety Survey";Barnes;Proc,2016

3. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care . National safety and quality health service standards guide for hospitals. Sydney, Australia: ACSQHC, 2017.

4. Ginsburg LR , Tregunno D , Norton PG . ‘Not another safety culture survey’: using the Canadian patient safety climate survey (Can-PSCS) to measure provider perceptions of PSC across health settings. BMJ Qual Saf 2014.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002220

5. Hogden A , Ellis LA , Churruca K . Safety culture assessment in health care: a review of the literature on safety culture assessment modes: ACSQHC, 2017. Available: https://www. safetyandquality. gov. au/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/Safety-Culture-Assessment-in-Health-Care-A-review-of-the-literature-on-safety-culture-assessment-modes. pdf

Cited by 43 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3