Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparing hospital leadership and front-line workers’ perceptions of patient safety culture: an unbalanced panel study
  1. Jayson Forbes1,
  2. Alejandro Arrieta2
  1. 1Nova Southeastern University - Fort Lauderdale/Davie Campus, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
  2. 2Department of Global Health, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jayson Forbes, Nova Southeastern University - Fort Lauderdale/Davie Campus, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33328, USA; jf1530{at}nova.edu

Abstract

Background/aim This article examines the relationships between workers’ hospital leadership status, hospital front-line status and patient safety culture in hospitals throughout the USA. By identifying possible disparities in perception, targeted interventions can aim at decreasing differences between the two groups to increase the quality of healthcare.

Method Data from 1 739 083 individuals, spreading across 1810 hospitals between 2008 and 2017 were collected. 115 228 (6.63%) self-identified as leaders, and 772 505 (44.42%) self-identified as front-line workers. The participants also filled in information describing their demographics in reference to the hospital, such as how long they have worked at the facility, their working unit and their occupation.

Results Results showed that leaders responded more positively to items that are directly related to management, such as ‘my supervisor/manager says a good word when he/she sees a job done according to established patient safety procedures’ (0.33, p<0.01), where 0.33 signifies that leaders had an average response more positive by 0.33 compared with all other occupations on a Likert scale of 1–5. Based on multiple F-tests, all items have shown a statistical significance between leadership and front-line groups.

Conclusion The findings highlight a compelling link between leadership roles and patient safety culture in hospitals, as well as between front-line worker status and patient safety culture. Moreover, a pronounced divergence in viewpoints regarding patient safety culture exists between hospital leaders and front-line staff. An in-depth investigation is necessary to comprehend the ramifications of these outcomes.

  • patient safety
  • leadership assessment
  • health system
  • analysis
  • management

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Deidentified participant data-Contact: SOPSResearchData@westat.com- Website: https://www.ahrq.gov/sops/databases/research-datasets.html- Reuse: Must send data request form to above contact. The SOPS data used in this analysis was provided by the SOPS Database. The SOPS Database is funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and administered by Westat under Contract Number HHSP233201500026I/HHSP23337004T.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Deidentified participant data-Contact: SOPSResearchData@westat.com- Website: https://www.ahrq.gov/sops/databases/research-datasets.html- Reuse: Must send data request form to above contact. The SOPS data used in this analysis was provided by the SOPS Database. The SOPS Database is funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and administered by Westat under Contract Number HHSP233201500026I/HHSP23337004T.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors JF: guarantor of study, planned and outlined study, literature review, conducted data analysis, curated results, determined and contributed to discussion and conclusion, revised and edited manuscript, submitted manuscript, revised and edited manuscript according to reviewer feedback. AA: helped plan and outline study, created data analysis method, contributed to discussion and conclusion, revised and edited manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.