The Role of Safety Culture in Influencing Provider Perceptions of Patient Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine how provider perceptions of safety culture influence their involvement in patient safety practices. METHODS: Health-care providers were surveyed in 2 tertiary hospitals located in Atlantic Canada, composed of 4 units in total. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data. Latent variables provider PLS model encompassed the hypothesized relationships between provider characteristics, safety culture, perceptions of patient safety practices, and actual performance of patient safety practices, using the Health Belief Model (HBM) as a guide. Data analysis was conducted using SmartPLS. RESULTS: A total of 113 health-care providers completed a survey out of an eligible 318, representing a response rate of 35.5%. The final PLS model showed acceptable internal consistency with all four latent variables having a composite reliability score above the recommended 0.70 cutoff value (safety culture = 0.86, threat = 0.76, expectations = 0.83, PS practices = 0.75). Discriminant validity was established, and all path coefficients were found to be significant at the α = 0.05 level using nonparametric bootstrapping. The survey results show that safety culture accounted for 34% of the variance in perceptions of threat and 42% of the variance in expectations. CONCLUSIONS: This research supports the role that safety culture plays in the promotion and maintenance of patient safety activities for health-care providers. As such, it is recommended that the introduction of new patient safety strategies follow a thorough exploration of an organization's safety culture.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".