Nurses' Perceptions of Safety Culture in Long‐Term Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe perceptions of workplace safety culture among nurses employed in long-term care (LTC) settings. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. Respondents were licensed nurses (N=550) with membership in gerontological nursing professional organizations in the United States (n=296), Canada (n=251), and other (n=3). METHODS: An anonymous, self-administered, mail-in questionnaire, which included the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture as well as questions about individual and institutional characteristics. The survey included key aspects of safety culture, such as work setting, supervisor support, communication about errors, and frequency of events reported. FINDINGS: Nurse-managers reported significantly more positive safety culture perceptions compared with licensed staff nurses. Additionally, licensed nurses employed in government-run facilities had significantly less positive safety culture perceptions compared with those working in nonprofit organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions designed to improve safety culture in LTC settings should be focused on the concerns of licensed staff nurses and the improvement of communication between these nurses and their managers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Enhancing safety culture in long-term care settings may facilitate improvements in resident safety. Assessment of workplace safety culture is the first step in identifying barriers that nurses face to provide safe resident care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".