Perceptions of Patient Safety Competence Using the Modified Version of the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) Instrument Among Dental Students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hassan Suliman Halawany,1 Nimmi Biju Abraham,2 Abid Hamoud Al-Badr,1 Khalifa S Al-Khalifa3 1Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2School of Oral Health, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; 3Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Hassan Suliman Halawany, Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P.O. Box 60169, Riyadh, 11545, Saudi Arabia, Tel +966 55 5415198, Email hhalawany@ksu.edu.saAim: To investigate dental students’ self-reported confidence in learning about various domains of patient safety during their clinical training years.Methods: The Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS) was distributed to the fourth- and fifth-year undergraduate students, interns and postgraduate dental students. The survey explores how the seven domains of the Canadian Patient Safety Institute Safety Competencies Framework and wider cases of patient safety issues are presented in dental education, as well as participants’ self-reported comfortability regarding revealing about patient safety issues. A comparison of the patient safety domains scores were assessed through learning scenarios (classroom and clinical), gender, level of study and type of institution.Results: Out of 409 participants, 359 undergraduate dental students and 131 postgraduate dental students responded to the survey. Irrespective of the groups, all dental students were most confident regarding their learning aspects about skills pertaining to clinical safety and effective communication and least confident in learning related to managing safety risks. All the patient safety factors irrespective of the scenario, scored above 75% and thus interpreted as good competence. Statistically significant differences were reported among the genders in the classroom scenario for learning about communicating effectively with the patients regarding patient safety issues (p < 0.05). Male dental students, undergraduates and those in the private institution were significantly less confident about recognizing and reporting to immediate risks in the clinical scenario compared to their respective counterparts (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Based on the results, the dental students are quite confident with regard to the learning aspects of clinical patient safety, nevertheless, their confidence in learning certain patient safety aspects warrants further improvement. This implies a need to address the impact of regular interventions, extra motivation and repeated mentoring in both the classroom and clinical scenarios on improving dental students’ confidence about patient safety.Keywords: patient safety, health care, clinical safety, dental students, postgraduates, questionnaire
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".