Patient safety culture in maternity units: a review.

IF 1 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE Pub Date : 2019-05-13 DOI:10.1108/IJHCQA-01-2018-0005
Waleed Al Nadabi, Bryan McIntosh, Tracy McClelland, Mohammed Mohammed
{"title":"Patient safety culture in maternity units: a review.","authors":"Waleed Al Nadabi,&nbsp;Bryan McIntosh,&nbsp;Tracy McClelland,&nbsp;Mohammed Mohammed","doi":"10.1108/IJHCQA-01-2018-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to summarize studies that have examined patient safety culture in maternity units and describe the different purposes, study designs and tools reported in these studies while highlighting gaps in the literature.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>Peer-reviewed studies, published in English during 1961-2016 across eight electronic databases, were subjected to a narrative literature review.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Among 100 articles considered, 28 met the inclusion criteria. The main purposes for studying PSC were: assessing intervention effects on PSC (<i>n</i>=17), and assessing PSC level (<i>n</i>=7). Patient safety culture was mostly assessed quantitatively using validated questionnaires (<i>n</i>=23). The Safety Attitude Questionnaire was the most commonly used questionnaire (<i>n</i>=17). Interventions varied from a single action lasting five weeks to a more comprehensive four year package. The time between baseline and follow-up assessment varied from 6 to 24 months. No study reported measurement or intervention costs, and none incorporated the patient's voice in assessing PSC.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>Assessing PSC in maternity units is feasible using validated questionnaires. Interventions to enhance PSC have not been rigorously evaluated. Future studies should report PSC measurement costs, adopt more rigorous evaluation designs and find ways to incorporate the patient's voice.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>This review summarized studies examining PSC in a highly important area and highlighted main limitations that future studies should consider.</p>","PeriodicalId":47455,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-01-2018-0005","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-01-2018-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to summarize studies that have examined patient safety culture in maternity units and describe the different purposes, study designs and tools reported in these studies while highlighting gaps in the literature.

Design/methodology/approach: Peer-reviewed studies, published in English during 1961-2016 across eight electronic databases, were subjected to a narrative literature review.

Findings: Among 100 articles considered, 28 met the inclusion criteria. The main purposes for studying PSC were: assessing intervention effects on PSC (n=17), and assessing PSC level (n=7). Patient safety culture was mostly assessed quantitatively using validated questionnaires (n=23). The Safety Attitude Questionnaire was the most commonly used questionnaire (n=17). Interventions varied from a single action lasting five weeks to a more comprehensive four year package. The time between baseline and follow-up assessment varied from 6 to 24 months. No study reported measurement or intervention costs, and none incorporated the patient's voice in assessing PSC.

Practical implications: Assessing PSC in maternity units is feasible using validated questionnaires. Interventions to enhance PSC have not been rigorously evaluated. Future studies should report PSC measurement costs, adopt more rigorous evaluation designs and find ways to incorporate the patient's voice.

Originality/value: This review summarized studies examining PSC in a highly important area and highlighted main limitations that future studies should consider.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
产科病房患者安全文化综述。
目的:本文的目的是总结研究已经检查了产妇单位的患者安全文化,并描述不同的目的,研究设计和工具在这些研究报告,同时突出在文献中的差距。设计/方法/方法:对1961-2016年在八个电子数据库中以英文发表的同行评议研究进行了叙述性文献综述。结果:在纳入的100篇文章中,有28篇符合纳入标准。研究PSC的主要目的是:评估干预对PSC的影响(n=17),评估PSC水平(n=7)。患者安全培养主要采用有效问卷进行定量评估(n=23)。安全态度问卷是最常用的问卷(n=17)。干预措施从持续五周的单一行动到更全面的四年一揽子计划不等。基线和随访评估之间的时间从6到24个月不等。没有研究报告测量或干预成本,也没有研究在评估PSC时纳入患者的声音。实际意义:评估PSC在产科单位是可行的,使用有效的问卷。加强PSC的干预措施尚未得到严格评估。未来的研究应该报告PSC的测量成本,采用更严格的评估设计,并找到纳入患者声音的方法。原创性/价值:这篇综述总结了在一个非常重要的领域研究PSC的研究,并强调了未来研究应该考虑的主要局限性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: ■Successful quality/continuous improvement projects ■The use of quality tools and models in leadership management development such as the EFQM Excellence Model, Balanced Scorecard, Quality Standards, Managed Care ■Issues relating to process control such as Six Sigma, Leadership, Managing Change and Process Mapping ■Improving patient care through quality related programmes and/or research Articles that use quantitative and qualitative methods are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
A cross-organizational Lean deployment in an Italian regional healthcare system. The mediating effect of patient trust on the relationship between service quality and patient satisfaction. Evaluating patient and medical staff satisfaction from doctor-patient communication. Lean six sigma and stroke in rural hospital - The case of Baruch Padeh Medical Center. Examining the behavioural intention of inpatients in Indian government hospitals.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1