Using Dominance Analysis to Identify the Most Important Dimensions of Safety Culture for Predicting Patient Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated associations between safety culture and patient safety based on the perceptions of healthcare professionals, but limited attention has been given to the perceptions of nurses. Moreover, most studies have used regression modeling, an approach that limits researchers' ability to identify the most important predictors of patient safety due to intercorrelations among predictors in the model. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of seven dimensions of safety culture on nurse-rated patient safety and identify the relative importance of these dimensions for predicting patient safety. This correlational study used data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's 2018 Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Data from 13,031 nurses working in surgical areas of 443 hospitals in the United States were examined using logistic regression and dominance analysis. Staffing adequacy was the strongest predictor of patient safety, followed by hospital management support for patient safety and organizational learning/continuous improvement. However, dominance analysis showed that hospital management support for patient safety was the most important predictor rather than staffing adequacy. Nurse managers and hospital administrators should role model a culture of safety and demonstrate their valuing of patient safety by providing sufficient resources, listening to and valuing staff suggestions regarding patient safety, and providing feedback about organizational changes to improve patient safety.
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 | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".