An updated analysis of safety climate and downstream outcomes in two convenience samples of U.S. fire departments (FOCUS 1.0 and 2.0 survey waves).

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Ashley M Geczik, Jin Lee, Joseph A Allen, Madison E Raposa, Lucy F Robinson, D Alex Quistberg, Andrea L Davis, Jennifer A Taylor
{"title":"An updated analysis of safety climate and downstream outcomes in two convenience samples of U.S. fire departments (FOCUS 1.0 and 2.0 survey waves).","authors":"Ashley M Geczik, Jin Lee, Joseph A Allen, Madison E Raposa, Lucy F Robinson, D Alex Quistberg, Andrea L Davis, Jennifer A Taylor","doi":"10.1186/s40621-024-00502-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Fire service Organizational Culture of Safety (FOCUS) survey is an assessment tool comprised of psychometrically validated metrics of safety climate, safety behavior, and downstream outcomes (organizational and injury) that are specific to the U.S. fire and rescue service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analysis consists of a descriptive summary of two independent survey waves (FOCUS 1.0 and 2.0). The fire departments included in these survey waves were from convenience sampling (n<sub>1.0</sub> = 275; n<sub>2.0</sub> = 170). In addition to department level characteristics, we examined individual level characteristics for firefighters and EMS providers in participating departments (n<sub>1.0</sub> = 22,719; n<sub>2.0</sub> = 16,882). We conducted regression analyses to examine the associations between safety climate and safety behaviors, organizational outcomes, and safety outcomes. All analyses were stratified by organization type (career, volunteer).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis indicated that a majority of respondents were males (90.7%<sub>FOCUS 1.0</sub>; 90.4%<sub>FOCUS 2.0</sub>), non-officers (68.4%<sub>FOCUS 1.0</sub>; 66.4%<sub>FOCUS 2.0</sub>), and non-Hispanic Whites (70.8%<sub>FOCUS 1.0</sub>; 69.5%<sub>FOCUS 2.0</sub>). For both samples there was a higher prevalence of injuries among individuals in career departments (n<sub>FOCUS 1.0</sub> = 3778 [17.5%]; n<sub>FOCUS 2.0</sub> = 3072 [18.7%]) than volunteer departments (n<sub>FOCUS 1.0</sub> = 103 [8.8%]; n<sub>FOCUS 2.0</sub> = 34 [7.4%]). We observed an approximate 10-point difference between the mean scores of Management Commitment to Safety for career and volunteer departments in both samples. We observed associations for two organizational outcomes, Safety Behavior and Job Satisfaction, with Management Commitment to Safety and Supervisor Support for Safety overall and when stratified by organization type. We observed a decrease in the odds of injuries associated with a one-unit increase in Management Commitment to Safety (OR<sub>1.0 overall</sub>: 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99; OR<sub>2.0 volunteer</sub>: 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95) and Supervisor Support for Safety (OR<sub>1.0 overall</sub>: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97; OR<sub>1.0 career</sub>: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>From our current study, and a prior analysis of a geographically stratified random sample of U.S. fire departments, we identified that from all the organizational outcomes, job satisfaction was most consistently associated with FOCUS safety climate. Further, firefighters in our samples consistently rated Supervisor Support for Safety higher than Management Commitment to Safety. Future interventions should support fire departments in improving their departmental Management Commitment to Safety and maintaining their Supervisor for Safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11106928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-024-00502-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Fire service Organizational Culture of Safety (FOCUS) survey is an assessment tool comprised of psychometrically validated metrics of safety climate, safety behavior, and downstream outcomes (organizational and injury) that are specific to the U.S. fire and rescue service.

Methods: This analysis consists of a descriptive summary of two independent survey waves (FOCUS 1.0 and 2.0). The fire departments included in these survey waves were from convenience sampling (n1.0 = 275; n2.0 = 170). In addition to department level characteristics, we examined individual level characteristics for firefighters and EMS providers in participating departments (n1.0 = 22,719; n2.0 = 16,882). We conducted regression analyses to examine the associations between safety climate and safety behaviors, organizational outcomes, and safety outcomes. All analyses were stratified by organization type (career, volunteer).

Results: Our analysis indicated that a majority of respondents were males (90.7%FOCUS 1.0; 90.4%FOCUS 2.0), non-officers (68.4%FOCUS 1.0; 66.4%FOCUS 2.0), and non-Hispanic Whites (70.8%FOCUS 1.0; 69.5%FOCUS 2.0). For both samples there was a higher prevalence of injuries among individuals in career departments (nFOCUS 1.0 = 3778 [17.5%]; nFOCUS 2.0 = 3072 [18.7%]) than volunteer departments (nFOCUS 1.0 = 103 [8.8%]; nFOCUS 2.0 = 34 [7.4%]). We observed an approximate 10-point difference between the mean scores of Management Commitment to Safety for career and volunteer departments in both samples. We observed associations for two organizational outcomes, Safety Behavior and Job Satisfaction, with Management Commitment to Safety and Supervisor Support for Safety overall and when stratified by organization type. We observed a decrease in the odds of injuries associated with a one-unit increase in Management Commitment to Safety (OR1.0 overall: 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99; OR2.0 volunteer: 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95) and Supervisor Support for Safety (OR1.0 overall: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97; OR1.0 career: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98).

Conclusions: From our current study, and a prior analysis of a geographically stratified random sample of U.S. fire departments, we identified that from all the organizational outcomes, job satisfaction was most consistently associated with FOCUS safety climate. Further, firefighters in our samples consistently rated Supervisor Support for Safety higher than Management Commitment to Safety. Future interventions should support fire departments in improving their departmental Management Commitment to Safety and maintaining their Supervisor for Safety.

对两个美国消防部门便利样本(FOCUS 1.0 和 2.0 调查波)的安全氛围和下游结果进行最新分析。
背景:消防组织安全文化(FOCUS)调查是一种评估工具,由经过心理测量学验证的安全氛围、安全行为和下游结果(组织和伤害)指标组成,专门针对美国消防和救援服务:本分析包括对两波独立调查(FOCUS 1.0 和 2.0)的描述性总结。这两次调查所涉及的消防部门均为方便抽样(n1.0 = 275;n2.0 = 170)。除了部门层面的特征外,我们还研究了参与部门的消防员和急救服务提供者的个人层面特征(n1.0 = 22,719; n2.0 = 16,882)。我们进行了回归分析,以研究安全氛围与安全行为、组织成果和安全成果之间的关联。所有分析均按组织类型(职业组织、志愿者组织)进行分层:我们的分析表明,大多数受访者为男性(90.7%FOCUS 1.0;90.4%FOCUS 2.0)、非官员(68.4%FOCUS 1.0;66.4%FOCUS 2.0)和非西班牙裔白人(70.8%FOCUS 1.0;69.5%FOCUS 2.0)。在这两个样本中,职业部门(nFOCUS 1.0 = 3778 [17.5%];nFOCUS 2.0 = 3072 [18.7%])的人员受伤率高于志愿部门(nFOCUS 1.0 = 103 [8.8%];nFOCUS 2.0 = 34 [7.4%])。我们观察到,在这两个样本中,职业部门和志愿部门的 "安全管理承诺 "平均得分相差约 10 分。我们观察到安全行为和工作满意度这两项组织结果与 "管理层对安全的承诺 "和 "主管对安全的支持 "的总体关系,以及在按组织类型分层时的关系。我们观察到,安全管理承诺每增加一个单位,受伤几率就会降低(总体 OR1.0:0.98,95% CI 0.97-0.99;志愿者 OR2.0:0.90,95% CI 0.99):0.90,95% CI 0.85-0.95)和主管对安全的支持(OR1.0 整体:0.95,95% CI 0.93-0.97;OR1.0 职业:0.95,95% CI 0.92-0.98):通过本次研究以及之前对美国消防部门的地理分层随机样本进行的分析,我们发现在所有组织结果中,工作满意度与 FOCUS 安全氛围的关系最为一致。此外,在我们的样本中,消防员对主管安全支持的评价始终高于对管理层安全承诺的评价。未来的干预措施应支持消防部门改善其部门的安全管理承诺,并维护其安全主管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信