Perceptions of Patient Safety Competence Using the Modified Version of the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) Instrument Among Dental Students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hassan Suliman Halawany,1 Nimmi Biju Abraham,2 Abid Hamoud Al-Badr,1 Khalifa S Al-Khalifa3 1Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2School of Oral Health, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; 3Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Hassan Suliman Halawany, Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P.O. Box 60169, Riyadh, 11545, Saudi Arabia, Tel +966 55 5415198, Email hhalawany@ksu.edu.saAim: To investigate dental students’ self-reported confidence in learning about various domains of patient safety during their clinical training years.Methods: The Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) was distributed to the fourth- and fifth-year undergraduate students, interns and postgraduate dental students. The survey explores how the seven domains of the Canadian Patient Safety Institute Safety Competencies Framework and wider cases of patient safety issues are presented in dental education, as well as participants’ self-reported comfortability regarding revealing about patient safety issues. A comparison of the patient safety domains scores were assessed through learning scenarios (classroom and clinical), gender, level of study and type of institution.Results: Out of 409 participants, 359 undergraduate dental students and 131 postgraduate dental students responded to the survey. Irrespective of the groups, all dental students were most confident regarding their learning aspects about skills pertaining to clinical safety and effective communication and least confident in learning related to managing safety risks. All the patient safety factors irrespective of the scenario, scored above 75% and thus interpreted as good competence. Statistically significant differences were reported among the genders in the classroom scenario for learning about communicating effectively with the patients regarding patient safety issues (p < 0.05). Male dental students, undergraduates and those in the private institution were significantly less confident about recognizing and reporting to immediate risks in the clinical scenario compared to their respective counterparts (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Based on the results, the dental students are quite confident with regard to the learning aspects of clinical patient safety, nevertheless, their confidence in learning certain patient safety aspects warrants further improvement. This implies a need to address the impact of regular interventions, extra motivation and repeated mentoring in both the classroom and clinical scenarios on improving dental students’ confidence about patient safety.Keywords: patient safety, health care, clinical safety, dental students, postgraduates, questionnaire
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».