Patient safety culture and satisfaction in Ghana: a facility-based cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, one of the measures of high performing healthcare facilities is the compliance of patient safety culture, which encompasses the ability of health institutions to avoid or drastically reduce patient harm or risks. These risks or harm is linked with numerous adverse patient outcomes such as medication error, infections, unsafe surgery and diagnosis error. OBJECTIVES: The general objective of this study was to investigate into the impact of patient safety culture practices experienced on patient satisfaction among patients who attend the Kwesimintsim Government Hospital in the Takoradi municipality. METHODS: This study was a descriptive cross-sectional study and a consecutive sampling technique was used to select 336 respondents for the study. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire and processed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, V.21. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were carried out and result were presented using figures and tables. RESULTS: The study found that the overall patient safety compliance level observed by the respondents was poor (29.2%). The prevalence of adverse events experienced among the respondents was high (58%). The leading adverse events mentioned were medication errors, followed by wrong prescriptions and infections. The consequences of these adverse events encountered by the respondents were mentioned as increased healthcare costs (52%), followed by hospitalisation (43%), worsening of health conditions (41%) and contraction of chronic health conditions (22%). Patient safety cultural practices such as teamwork (β=0.17, p=0.03), response to error (β=0.16, p=0.005), communication openness (β=0.17, p=0.003) and handoffs and information exchange (β=0.17, p=0.002) were found to positively influence patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The poor general compliance of the patient safety culture in the facility is unfortunate, and this can affect healthcare outcomes significantly. The study therefore entreats facility managers and various stakeholders to see patient safety care as an imperative approach to delivering quality essential healthcare and to act accordingly to create an environment that supports it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".