Healthcare workers’ perception of their awareness, skills and attitudes towards clinical quality and patient safety in an acute care hospital in Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Healthcare institutions have taken efforts to communicate to their healthcare workers (HCWs) about the concepts and importance of clinical quality and patient safety (CQPS). However, implementing interventions to promote pro CQPS behaviour without fully evaluating the factors that direct such behaviour may be costly and counter-productive. This study aimed to investigate HCWs’ perception of their competence and attitudes towards CQPS. It also looked into their perceived behaviour pattern to unsafe practices and usefulness of the different avenues to improve CQPS behavior in the hospital.Methods: A survey was conducted among doctors, nurses and allied health workers over two months in 2017. Paper surveys were distributed during departmental staff meetings. Participation was strictly voluntary, and responses were de-identified and kept confidential. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics.Results: The participation rate was 90.2% (541/600). Of the respondents, 88.0% and 85.6% agreed that CQPS was important and relevant to their work respectively. However, when asked if they execute a series of pro-CQPS behaviour, results showed a knowledge-behaviour disconnect. Only 36.2% will intervene when they see unsafe practice and 27.2% see the importance of reporting near miss events.Conclusions: While respondents are generally aware of the importance and relevance of CQPS, this is not reflected in their behaviour as they are unmotivated and show disinterest in practising pro-CQPS behaviour. Further studies are needed to address the factors associated with this knowledge-behaviour disconnect.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".