A-189 Assessment of Patient Safety Culture in Brazilian Diagnostic Network: Analysis of Dimensions, Communication, and Organizational Learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The patient safety culture survey is an essential tool for assessing beliefs, values, and behaviors related to patient safety at different levels of a healthcare organization. The main objective is to identify areas for strengthening and improvement opportunities, aiming to promote a safe environment for patients. The survey was conducted by a large Brazilian diagnostic service, using the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture, developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), as the tool. The dimensions assessed, such as teamwork, open communication, organizational learning, and management support, directly influence the quality of care provided. Methods The 2nd edition of the survey was conducted in several stages, including preparation, dissemination, data collection, analysis, and communication of results. Data collection took place between October 2024 and November 2024, with a focus on involving 21,153 eligible professionals. A total of 3,949 responses were received, of which 3,537 were eligible, resulting in a response rate of 17%. When compared to the literature (Sckolnick, 2021) and the 1st edition of the survey conducted in 2022, the expected percentage to make the result representative was a minimum participation of 10% of the eligible audience. Results The survey results indicated that 63% of respondents rated the safety culture as positive, while 21% considered it neutral and 16% negative. The dimensions with the highest percentage of positive responses were Organizational Learning/Continuous Improvement (78%), Teamwork Between Units (75%), Feedback and Communication of Errors (73%), Frequency of Adverse Event Reporting (73%), and Teamwork Within Units (58%). However, some dimensions showed opportunities for improvement, such as Non-Punitive Response to Errors (30% positive responses) and Adequacy of Staffing (41%). It was also observed that 52% of respondents reported never having made a patient safety incident report. The overall perception of safety was considered excellent or very good by 63% of respondents at the institutional level and 60% at the regional level. Compared to the 1st edition conducted in 2022, there was only a 2% difference, with just one dimension showing a decrease in percentage: Teamwork Within Units, which dropped from 76% in 2022 to 58% in 2024. Conclusion The survey highlighted that the safety culture is strong in several dimensions, such as communication and teamwork, but there are still opportunities for improvement, especially regarding non-punitive responses to errors and reporting of safety events. Implementing corrective and preventive actions, with a focus on continuous learning and management support, will be crucial to further strengthen the patient safety culture. Communicating the results and engaging all levels of the organization will be essential to promote a safer and more effective work environment, benefiting both professionals and patients. To overcome these barriers, it is essential to invest in strategies that prioritize the continuous training of professionals, the creation of evidence-based protocols, and the strengthening of leadership committed to patient safety. Adopting practices that encourage an environment of trust and learning, where errors are seen as opportunities for improvement, is also fundamental to consolidating the safety culture.
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 | 0,002 | 0,019 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».