Analyzing and Prioritizing the Dimensions of Patient Safety Culture in Emergency Wards Using the TOPSIS Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIM: Doubtlessly, permanent development in patient care services is not feasible without paying attention to the culture of safety by health and treatment institutes. The present study is an attempt to analyze the cultural aspects of patient safety in the emergency wards of hospitals affiliated with the Tehran Medical Science University. The viewpoint of the nurses and hospital officials and their priorities were studied. For prioritizing the results of this study the TOPSIS technique was chosen. METHODS: The study was conducted as an analytical-descriptive and cross-sectional one. It was carried out in two parts: at first the cultural aspects of the patients were measured using a questionnaire for a six months period in 2011 in emergency wards of the hospitals under study. The study population was constituted of physicians and nurses of the emergency wards. The sample group (n=270) was selected through a cluster sampling and its size was determined by using the sample size formula. For data gathering, the standard questionnaire of Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) was used. The data were analyzed in SPSS. The aspects of the safety culture were prioritized using the TOPSIS model. The criteria were ranked by using the MATLAB software. RESULTS: There was a significant relationship among the aspects of performance, teamwork, feedback, mistake relationships, and the support of the managers (P ? 0.05). The total point of the patient safety culture in the majority of the hospitals were at a mean level of 3. The maximum score was 5. The maximum and minimum mean points were obtained by the Hasheminejad and Sina hospitals respectively. The results of the multivariate decision-making analysis indicated that human, managerial, organizational, and environmental factors were at the top of priorities in a descending order. The factors were extremely effective in the improvement of safety in hospitals. CONCLUSION: Human factors were the most effective and important factors in the improvement of safety in emergency wards. Therefore, there is a need to pay more attention to such factors in safety improvement programming. Training, cultural works, preparation of organizational environments, and motivating environmental factors were of the main measures that must be taken into account by the managers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".