Healthcare professionals' perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study.
Hospital
Leadership
Occupational safety climate
Patient safety climate
Transformational leadership
Working conditions
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Jan 2019
21 Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
24
01
2018
accepted:
27
12
2018
entrez:
23
1
2019
pubmed:
23
1
2019
medline:
13
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs' perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians. We performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate. A total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians. The WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals - especially for nurses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs' perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals - especially for nurses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30665401
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7
pii: 10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7
pmc: PMC6341698
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
53Subventions
Organisme : Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
ID : IN-1148721
Investigateurs
E Luntz
(E)
M A Rieger
(MA)
H Sturm
(H)
A Wagner
(A)
A Hammer
(A)
T Manser
(T)
P Martus
(P)
M Holderried
(M)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Qual Health Care. 2001 Dec;10 Suppl 2:ii3-7
pubmed: 11700372
Psychol Methods. 2002 Jun;7(2):147-77
pubmed: 12090408
J Hosp Infect. 2003 May;54(1):68-73
pubmed: 12767850
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2004 Apr;43(2):109-15
pubmed: 15100920
J Safety Res. 2004;35(4):427-45
pubmed: 15474546
Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2006 Nov;7(4):240-7
pubmed: 17242389
Healthc Q. 2008;11(2):42-51, 2
pubmed: 18362519
Gesundheitswesen. 2008 Aug-Sep;70(8-9):519-24
pubmed: 18785097
BMC Public Health. 2008 Oct 07;8:353
pubmed: 18840296
Med Care. 2009 Jan;47(1):23-31
pubmed: 19106727
Psychosoc Med. 2006 Oct 18;3:Doc05
pubmed: 19742072
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Apr;107(14):248-53
pubmed: 20436777
Scand J Public Health. 2010 Feb;38(3 Suppl):120-4
pubmed: 21172777
J Occup Health Psychol. 2012 Jan;17(1):105-15
pubmed: 21875211
Med Care. 2011 Dec;49(12):1047-53
pubmed: 21945978
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Jan;22(1):11-8
pubmed: 22849965
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Feb;50(2):143-53
pubmed: 23254247
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Feb;50(2):210-8
pubmed: 23273435
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Mar 5;158(5 Pt 2):369-74
pubmed: 23460092
Br J Health Psychol. 2013 Nov;18(4):874-91
pubmed: 23480457
J Safety Res. 2013 Jun;45:95-101
pubmed: 23708480
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Oct 09;13:401
pubmed: 24103290
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Feb;26(1):64-70
pubmed: 24334232
Springerplus. 2014 Jan 14;3:25
pubmed: 24455469
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2014 Feb 05;9(1):4
pubmed: 24499468
Lancet. 2014 May 24;383(9931):1824-30
pubmed: 24581683
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Oct;23(10):806-13
pubmed: 24742780
Scand J Public Health. 2015 Jul;43(5):447-52
pubmed: 25851017
J Patient Saf. 2018 Sep;14(3):181-185
pubmed: 25906403
BMJ Open. 2015 May 03;5(4):e006871
pubmed: 25941177
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Sep;24(9):583-93
pubmed: 25972223
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Aug 14;15:326
pubmed: 26272228
Int J Qual Health Care. 2015 Dec;27(6):499-506
pubmed: 26443813
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Nov;22(11):1348-50
pubmed: 26468634
Med Care. 2016 Jan;54(1):74-80
pubmed: 26783858
J Occup Environ Med. 2016 Feb;58(2):185-94
pubmed: 26849263
BMC Res Notes. 2016 Mar 18;9:177
pubmed: 26992376
Gesundheitswesen. 2016 Sep;78(S 01):e97-e102
pubmed: 27176714
J Occup Environ Med. 2016 Jul;58(7):651-8
pubmed: 27206128
Int Emerg Nurs. 2017 Jan;30:20-24
pubmed: 27524107
Hum Resour Health. 2016 Dec 1;14(1):73
pubmed: 27903294
Nurs Inq. 2017 Oct;24(4):
pubmed: 28150910
Med Pr. 2017 Mar 24;68(2):167-178
pubmed: 28345677
J Safety Res. 2017 Jun;61:187-198
pubmed: 28454864
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 1;7(9):e015607
pubmed: 28864690
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 9;7(11):e018366
pubmed: 29127231
ScientificWorldJournal. 2018 Jul 19;2018:9156301
pubmed: 30104917
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Nov 23;15(12):
pubmed: 30477111
J Appl Psychol. 1980 Feb;65(1):96-102
pubmed: 7364709