Safety Perceptions of Health Care Leaders in 2 Canadian Academic Acute Care Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: An estimated 7.4% of patients admitted to acute care facilities in Canada experience injury or death due to health care mishaps, and 38% of these events are deemed preventable. Commitment of executive leaders to a culture of safety is important for the reduction of risk to Canadian patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety climate from a leader's perspective in 2 Canadian acute care settings, with attention paid to high reliability organization (HRO) principles. METHODS: The Patient Safety Culture in Healthcare Organizations questionnaire was administered to leaders in 2 acute care hospitals in Ontario between June and January 2009. The primary outcome measures were senior leadership support for safety and supervisory leadership support for safety. Misalignment between the safety climate and HRO principles was defined as greater than 10% of respondents reporting problematic or neutral leadership support for safety. RESULTS: Of the 142 respondents (67% response rate), both medical/nursing leaders and tertiary care clinical leaders were significantly more likely than board/administrative leaders to report problematic/neutral responses. Overall, executive leadership perceptions of the safety climate were not aligned with HRO principles. CONCLUSIONS: The significant differences in response between board/administrative leaders and those involved in frontline patient care suggest that a weak safety culture exists in these 2 health care organizations. The cultivation of a stronger organizational safety culture, in alignment with HRO principles, could lead to lower rates of preventable mishaps and support risk identification and mitigation in perioperative settings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".