Survey on patient safety culture in the Republic of Moldova: a baseline study in three healthcare settings.

Clujul medical (1957) Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-01-15 DOI:10.15386/cjmed-869
Carmen Tereanu, Giuseppe Sampietro, Francesco Sarnataro, Dumitru Siscanu, Rodica Palaria, Victor Savin, Tatiana Cliscovscaia, Valentina Pislaru, Valeriu Oglinda, Larisa Capmare, Mugurel Stefan Ghelase, Tamara Turcanu
{"title":"Survey on patient safety culture in the Republic of Moldova: a baseline study in three healthcare settings.","authors":"Carmen Tereanu, Giuseppe Sampietro, Francesco Sarnataro, Dumitru Siscanu, Rodica Palaria, Victor Savin, Tatiana Cliscovscaia, Valentina Pislaru, Valeriu Oglinda, Larisa Capmare, Mugurel Stefan Ghelase, Tamara Turcanu","doi":"10.15386/cjmed-869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The Republic of Moldova is a small ex-soviet country in the Central Eastern European group of states, whose official language is Romanian. In countries with limited resources, quality improvement in healthcare and patient safety are very challenging. This study aims to identify which areas of the patient safety culture (PSC) need prompt intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted in three Moldovan healthcare settings, using the Romanian translation of the US Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture HSOPSC. Descriptive statistics were carried out, based on the responses from n. 929 staff. Percentages of positive responses (PPRs) by item (41 items) and composite (12 PSC areas) were computed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most respondents were nurses (53%), followed by doctors (35%). The main work areas were: primary care (27%), medical specialties (20%), gynecology and obstetrics (16%), and general surgery (11%). The highest composite PPRs were for: teamwork within units (80%), feedback & communication about error, organizational learning-continuous improvement and supervisor/manager expectations & actions promoting patient safety (78%), and management support for patient safety (75%). The lowest composites were for: frequency of events reported (57%), non-punitive response to errors (53%), communication openness (51%) and staffing (37%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that staffing issues should be tackled to provide safe care. Staff avoid to openly report adverse events and/or discuss errors, likely because a poor understanding of the potential of these events for learning and because of fear of blame or punitive actions. Future research should check psychometrics of the Romanian version of the HSOPSC applied to Moldovan staff.</p>","PeriodicalId":91233,"journal":{"name":"Clujul medical (1957)","volume":"91 1","pages":"65-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/cd/cm-91-65.PMC5808270.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clujul medical (1957)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: The Republic of Moldova is a small ex-soviet country in the Central Eastern European group of states, whose official language is Romanian. In countries with limited resources, quality improvement in healthcare and patient safety are very challenging. This study aims to identify which areas of the patient safety culture (PSC) need prompt intervention.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in three Moldovan healthcare settings, using the Romanian translation of the US Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture HSOPSC. Descriptive statistics were carried out, based on the responses from n. 929 staff. Percentages of positive responses (PPRs) by item (41 items) and composite (12 PSC areas) were computed.

Results: Most respondents were nurses (53%), followed by doctors (35%). The main work areas were: primary care (27%), medical specialties (20%), gynecology and obstetrics (16%), and general surgery (11%). The highest composite PPRs were for: teamwork within units (80%), feedback & communication about error, organizational learning-continuous improvement and supervisor/manager expectations & actions promoting patient safety (78%), and management support for patient safety (75%). The lowest composites were for: frequency of events reported (57%), non-punitive response to errors (53%), communication openness (51%) and staffing (37%).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that staffing issues should be tackled to provide safe care. Staff avoid to openly report adverse events and/or discuss errors, likely because a poor understanding of the potential of these events for learning and because of fear of blame or punitive actions. Future research should check psychometrics of the Romanian version of the HSOPSC applied to Moldovan staff.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

摩尔多瓦共和国患者安全文化调查:三家医疗机构的基线研究。
背景和目标:摩尔多瓦共和国是中东欧国家集团中的一个前苏联小国,官方语言为罗马尼亚语。在资源有限的国家,提高医疗质量和患者安全非常具有挑战性。本研究旨在确定患者安全文化(PSC)的哪些方面需要及时干预:方法:在摩尔多瓦的三个医疗机构开展了一项横断面研究,使用的是美国医院患者安全文化调查 HSOPSC 的罗马尼亚语译文。根据 929 名员工的回答进行了描述性统计。按项目(41 个项目)和复合项目(12 个患者安全文化领域)计算了正面回答(PPRs)的百分比:大多数受访者是护士(53%),其次是医生(35%)。主要工作领域是:初级保健(27%)、内科专科(20%)、妇产科(16%)和普通外科(11%)。综合患者满意度最高的是:科室内的团队合作(80%)、有关差错的反馈和沟通、组织学习-持续改进和主管/经理对促进患者安全的期望和行动(78%),以及管理层对患者安全的支持(75%)。综合得分最低的是:事件报告频率(57%)、对差错的非惩罚性反应(53%)、沟通开放性(51%)和人员配置(37%):我们的结果表明,要提供安全的护理,就必须解决人员配置问题。员工避免公开报告不良事件和/或讨论差错,可能是因为对这些事件的学习潜力认识不足,也可能是因为害怕受到指责或惩罚。未来的研究应检查适用于摩尔多瓦员工的罗马尼亚语版 HSOPSC 的心理测量学。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信