An exploratory study of safety culture, biological risk management and hand hygiene of healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objectives of the study were to: (1) examine the relationships between three different qualitative perceptions of safety culture and the Canadian Patient Safety Climate Survey factors; (2) determine whether these perceptions are associated with different hand hygiene practices. BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections and safety cultures are a worldwide issue. During the A/H1N1 Influenza pandemic, Europe and North America did not have the same responses. Importantly, healthcare professionals' perceptions can influence patient safety through infection prevention practices like hand hygiene. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used with data collected in 2015. METHODS: The Canadian Patient Safety Culture Survey and hand hygiene observations were gathered from three healthcare centres (two Canadian and one European). Descriptive analyses and ANOVAs were conducted to explore healthcare professionals' safety perceptions and practices. RESULTS: The rates of hand hygiene practices varied widely between the three sites, ranging from 35-77%. One site (Site 3) was found to have the highest scores of management follow-up, feedback about incidents, supervisory leadership for safety, unit learning culture and senior leadership support for safety, and the highest levels of overall patient safety grades for the unit and organization. CONCLUSION: The quantitative results of this study support the previously described model based on qualitative results: individual culture, blaming culture and collaborative culture. Differences between continents emerged regarding infection prevention practices and the way we qualify infections. The results raise concerns about infection practices and about safety cultures and challenges worldwide.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".