Study and promotion of safety culture using mixed methods research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective With a positive safety culture, institutions offer the best quality and safe care to their patients. The objective of this study was to analyze patient safety culture from the perspective of the multidisciplinary team, to identify factors that influence patient safety culture, and to create/promote—jointly with the study participants—strategies for improving processes of change. Methods The study design represented a mixed methods research approach, with a sequential explanatory design. A multidisciplinary team of workers at a general hospital was eligible for the study. To collect quantitative data, we administered the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ). The qualitative phase was accomplished via focus groups (FGs), with participants from the first phase of the study using the principles of deliberative dialogue (DD) as a knowledge-translation strategy. The STROBE guideline was used to develop the study. Results The overall SAQ score was positive (75.1 ± 10.4). Negative scores were found in the fields of Safety Climate, Working Conditions, and Stress Recognition. Focus group discussions identified the aspects that create a negative impact on safety culture, such as ineffective communication, punitive approach in the event of errors, the lack of commitment and adherence to the protocols, and the non-recognition of the stress and the mistakes. Actions for the promotion of safety culture were developed and implemented during the study. Conclusions The use of the principles of DD as a strategy for knowledge translation (KT) made it possible to identify and plan for joint actions to generate improvements in 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".