Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
com
405
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Background: Despite the emphasis on patient safety in health care, few organizations have evaluated the
extent to which safety is a strategic priority or their culture supports patient safety. In response to the
Institute of Medicine’s report and to an organizational commitment to patient safety, we conducted a
systematic assessment of safety at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) and, from this, developed a strategic
plan to improve safety. The specific aims of this study were to evaluate the extent to which the culture
supports patient safety at JHH and the extent to which safety is a strategic priority.
Methods: During July and August 2001 we implemented two surveys in disparate populations to assess
patient safety. The Safety Climate Scale (SCS) was administered to a sample of physicians, nurses,
pharmacists, and other ICU staff. SCS assesses perceptions of a strong and proactive organizational
See end of article for commitment to patient safety. The second survey instrument, called Strategies for Leadership (SLS),
authors’ affiliations
....................... evaluated the extent to which safety was a strategic priority for the organization. This survey was
administered to clinical and administrative leaders.
Correspondence to: Results: We received 395 completed SCS surveys from 82% of the departments and 86% of the nursing
Dr P J Pronovost,
Department of units. Staff perceived that supervisors had a greater commitment to safety than senior leaders. Nurses had
Anesthesiology and higher scores than physicians for perceptions of safety. Twenty three completed SLS surveys were received
Critical Care Medicine, from 77% of the JHH Patient Safety Committee members and 50% of the JHH Management Committee
The Johns Hopkins members. Management Committee responses were more positive than Patient Safety Committee,
University, 600 N Wolfe
Street, Meyer 295, indicating that management perceived safety efforts to be further developed. Strategic planning received
Baltimore, MD 21287, the lowest scores from both committees.
USA; ppronovo@jhmi.edu Conclusions: We believe this is one of the first large scale efforts to measure institutional culture of safety
Accepted for publication and then design improvements in health care. The survey results suggest that strategic planning of patient
7 August 2003 safety needs enhancement. Several efforts to improve our culture of safety were initiated based on these
....................... results, which should lead to measurable improvements in patient safety.
D
espite the awareness that many patients are harmed Recent evidence from aviation supports the association
rather than helped when encountering the healthcare between a culture of safety and reduced pilot error.9 Indeed,
system,1 and that patients receive on average half the much of the improvements in aviation safety are attributed to
treatments they ought to,2 there are few examples of struc- improved crew coordination, communication, and decision
tured efforts to eliminate these ills.3 To improve, organizations making10 11 The culture in aviation encourages individuals to
must identify broken systems and fix them. Systems include step forward and share their stories about adverse events. In
both how we organize work and the culture of organizations. addition to technical skills, pilots are now hired for their
While most attempts to improve safety in health care are ability to coordinate activities, learn from errors, and
reactive, responding after someone is harmed, efforts to recognize that others can contribute to problem solving.
proactively identify and eliminate hazards have the potential Teamwork training is nearly universal in aviation and is
to significantly improve safety.4 To accomplish this, patient formally mandated by the United Nations for all carriers
safety must be viewed as a strategic priority around which flying international routes.11 Survey results contrasting safety
the entire efforts of the organization must be focused. The attitudes in aviation and medicine suggest that medicine
Baldrige framework provides a lens to evaluate the extent to generally lags behind aviation and needs improvement.11
which the efforts of the organization are focused around a Despite the emphasis on patient safety in health care, few
strategic priority.5 organizations have evaluated the extent to which safety is a
While the extent to which safety is a strategic priority may strategic priority or their culture supports patient safety. In
reflect attitudes of the leadership toward patient safety, it response to the Institute of Medicine’s report and to an
may not reflect the organization’s culture—the collection of organizational commitment to patient safety, we conducted a
values, beliefs and assumptions that guides members’ systematic assessment of safety at the Johns Hopkins
behaviors.6–8 Helmreich describes employees in a safe culture Hospital (JHH) and, from this, developed a strategic plan to
as being guided by an organization wide commitment to improve safety. The specific aims of this study were to
safety where safety standards are upheld on a personal and evaluate the extent to which the culture supports patient
team level.8 Characteristics of a strong and proactive safety safety at JHH and the extent to which safety is a strategic priority.
culture include the commitment of the leadership to dis-
cussing and learning from errors, documenting and improv- METHODS
ing patient safety, encouraging and practising teamwork, The JHH is a 910 bed academic medical center located in an
spotting potential hazards, using systems for reporting and urban setting. During July and August 2001 we implemented
analyzing adverse events, and celebrating workers as heroes two survey instruments in disparate populations to assess
improving safety rather than as villains committing errors. patient safety. The Safety Climate Scale (SCS), adapted from
www.qshc.com
Downloaded from http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ on July 9, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
406 Pronovost, Weast, Holzmueller, et al
the Flight Management Attitudes and Safety Survey,9–12 was Use of data to inform safety efforts
used to evaluate safety culture among staff, and the Scores on individual items of the SCS and variation among
Strategies for Leadership Survey (SLS), developed by the types of caregivers would help to focus future patient safety
Volunteer Hospital Association Inc (VHA), was used to efforts.
evaluate the extent to which safety was a strategic priority
for hospital leaders. Strategies for leadership survey (SLS)
The SLS, developed by VHA Inc and built on the Malcolm
Safety climate scale (SCS) Baldrige framework, evaluates the extent to which safety is a
The SCS is a 10 item survey which uses a 5-point Likert scale strategic priority for an organization.5 This survey was
where 1 = disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neutral, grouped into six core areas: (1) leadership, (2) strategic
4 = somewhat agree, and 5 = agree. This survey evaluates planning, (3) information and analysis, (4) human resources,
perceptions of a strong and proactive organizational commit- (5) process management, and (6) patient and family
ment to patient safety. It taps physician, nurse and senior involvement.
leadership’s commitment to safety, their knowledge of how Within each core area, key aspects of safety were evaluated
to report adverse events, and their understanding of systems with one or more questions. Responses to each item were
as the cause of adverse events. rated using a 5-point Likert scale with the following potential
The SCS was adapted from a widely used survey tool in responses: 1 = there has been no discussion around this
aviation that queries cockpit management attitudes. The activity; 2 = this activity is under discussion but there is no
aviation questionnaire was developed to measure attitudes implementation; 3 = this activity is partially implemented in
toward stress, status hierarchies, leadership, and interperso- some or all areas of the organization; 4 = this activity is fully
nal interaction.13 Scales (as well as individual items) from the implemented in some areas of the organization; 5 = this
health care and aviation surveys have demonstrated good activity is fully implemented throughout the organization.
test-retest reliability,14 good internal consistency, and replic-
able factor structures.12 14 Moreover, they are predictive of Study sample
pilot performance,9 13 high speed rail incident rates,15 risk The goal of this survey was to evaluate the extent to which
adjusted intensive care unit (ICU) patient outcomes,14 and patient safety was a strategic priority among senior clinical
are sensitive to training interventions.16–19 and administrative leaders. As such, we surveyed members of
the Patient Safety Committee to obtain our sample of clinical
Study sample leaders. This 22 member multidisciplinary committee com-
The goal of this survey was to evaluate the safety attitudes of prises physician, nursing, administrative, technical, legal,
staff throughout JHH, thereby providing broad insights into communication, and pharmacy leaders. Some of its members
our safety climate. As such, we used convenience sampling to include the Vice President for Medical Affairs, ICU leader-
survey a wide range of providers throughout the JHH. ship, Coordinator of Nursing Clinical Quality, Deputy Director
Physicians representing each department, nurses represent- for Communications and Public Affairs, Director for Medical
ing each clinical nursing unit, pharmacists, respiratory Staff Administration, Director of Hospital Epidemiology and
therapists, clinical and pharmacy technicians, nursing aides, Infection Control, Assistant Director of Facilities, Assistant
clerical staff and others (non-licensed staff and those who Director of Pharmacy, Director of Performance Improvement
did not specify a role) were approached. Our physician and Utilization Management, and Chairpersons of the
sample consisted of 22 physician advisors from each depart- hospital’s ethics committee. Only one person completed both
ment who sit on the hospital’s Clinical Performance Improve- the SCS and SLS.
ment Committee. Because ICUs are high risk areas20 but do To obtain our sample of senior administrative leaders, we
not have physician advisors, we also surveyed ICU physician sent the same SLS to the JHH’s Management Committee.
directors and co-directors from four adult ICUs. The nursing This 12 member multidisciplinary team comprises hospital
sample consisted of nurse managers from 70 clinical nursing leaders including the President, Executive Vice President/
units, as well as other nurses and staff from each unit. The COO and Vice Presidents.
nurse manager randomly selected up to four nurses and two
other staff. The pharmacy sample consisted of the assistant Method of data collection
director of pharmacy who, in turn, distributed the survey to The survey was administered by mail with an attached cover
96 clinical pharmacists, as well as pharmacy technicians. letter to the clinical and administrative leaders. In the letter
Thus, our study sample included clinical leaders (physician were instructions for completing and returning the survey
advisors, ICU directors, nurse managers and a pharmacy within 2 weeks to the Vice-President for Medical Affairs. A
director), clinical staff (nurses on the units, pharmacists, second mailing was not undertaken.
clinical associates, pharmacy technicians), and non-clinical
staff (clerical, non-licensed).
Data analysis
Results are presented as the proportion that responded 4 or 5
Method of data collection (full or partial implementation) and 1 or 2 (no discussion or
The survey was distributed by email and accompanied by a implementation). We aggregated the responses to the
cover letter with instructions to fax the survey back to the questions in each core area of the SLS to produce a summary
Vice-President for Medical Affairs within 2 weeks. A second score. Results of the SLS were stratified by membership in
mailing was not performed. the Patient Safety Committee versus Management Com-
mittee. Differences between groups were evaluated using a x2
Data analysis test.
The results are presented as the proportion that agreed with
each item (survey response 4 or 5). We stratified results of Use of data to inform safety efforts
the SCS using the following provider types: physician, nurse, The score on the individual domains of the SLS and variation
nurse manager, pharmacist, and other. Differences between between managers and clinicians would help to inform
groups were evaluated using the x2 test. future patient safety efforts.
www.qshc.com
Downloaded from http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ on July 9, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
Evaluating the culture of safety 407
Strategies for leadership survey (SLS) N Senior leaders need to become more visible to front line
staff in their efforts to improve patient safety.
The characteristics of respondents to the SLS are shown in
table 1. We received surveys from 17 of 22 (77%) members of N There should be a proactive strategic planning process for
patient safety.
the Patient Safety Committee and from six of 12 (50%)
members of the Management Committee. The overall mean
score from both committees was 162 out of a possible 270
N Greater efforts are needed to involve and educate
physicians about patient safety.
with the Management Committee scoring 186 and the
Patient Safety Committee scoring 153. We believe the perceived lack of strategic planning for
There were statistically significant differences between safety reflects the activity of the leadership of the institution
members of the Management and Patient Safety Committees in safety. To date, most safety efforts have focused on react-
for eight of the nine questions (89%). The proportion of respon- ing to crises rather than proactively identifying hazards and
dents to the SLS who perceived safety areas as either fully or improving systems. It is believed that the physicians’ lack of
partially implemented is presented in table 3. Members of the knowledge for reporting adverse events is also a reflection of
Management Committee provided higher scores than members institutional efforts, as most of the efforts to enhance reporting
of the Patient Safety Committee in each of the core areas, indi- of medication errors have been led by nurses and pharmacists.
cating their perception that safety in that core area is further Results from the SLS have strengthened efforts to improve
developed. Few respondents perceived that strategic planning safety. These results were presented to the Performance
was fully or partially implemented. In addition, the relatively Improvement Council, the Management Committee, the
low scoring for leadership by the Patient Safety Committee is con- Clinical Performance Improvement Committee (comprised
sistent with the staff’s perceptions of senior leaders in the SCS. of physician advisors), nursing leaders, and performance
Table 4 shows the proportion of respondents who perceived improvement/utilization management meetings.
that safety is not discussed or implemented (responded 1 or To a large extent, the results from both surveys have
2). Most of these respondents felt that strategic planning for prompted the Patient Safety Committee to develop a strategic
safety was not discussed or implemented. plan to improve patient safety. The cornerstone of this plan
was to develop and implement a comprehensive unit based
DISCUSSION patient safety program (CUSP) that could be sequentially imple-
We conducted an assessment of the culture of safety and the mented in the work units (for example, clinical nursing unit)
extent to which safety is a strategic priority throughout the with front line staff involvement. This program attempts to
JHH by administering two survey instruments to a diverse improve the culture of safety in the units and in the institu-
tion and to lead to measurable improvements in safety. The
infrastructure of CUSP affords clinical staff the opportunity
Table 1 Respondents to Safety Climate Scale (SCS) and to assess their particular and often unique environment and to
Strategies for Leadership Survey (SLS) identify opportunities to reduce system errors and to engage
Respondent No surveyed No responding (%) senior executive staff in obtaining resources for system improve-
ments. This program, meant to be implemented at the nursing
Safety Climate Scale unit level, contrasts with the centralized approach used to
Physician advisors 22 18 (82%)
ICU physician leaders 8 8 (100%)
improve safety at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System.21
Nurse managers 70 29 (41%) The Patient Safety Committee has also developed several
Staff nurses 280 169 (60) other initiatives to improve safety. This committee has
Pharmacists 96 84 (86) created a safety mission statement, developed a non-punitive
Other 140 87 (62)
Strategies for Leadership error reporting policy, created an information sheet of safety
Survey tips for patients and families to follow to help ensure their
Patient Safety Committee 22 17 (77%) safety while in the hospital, educated staff on the science of
Management Committee 12 6 (50%) safety and how to disclose errors, developed a patient safety
intranet site on which staff can share stories regarding
patient safety, and implemented senior executive walk
www.qshc.com
Downloaded from http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ on July 9, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
408 Pronovost, Weast, Holzmueller, et al
Table 2 Percentage of respondents who agreed with questions in the Safety Climate Scale in aviation and in our survey
stratified by provider type
Overall Physicians Staff nurse Nurse manager Pharmacist Other staff
(N = 395) (N = 26) (N = 169) (N = 29) (N = 84) (N = 87)
*p,0.05 (x2 test for differences) in any provider type compared with others.
To place our results into a comparative context for evaluating culture in safety critical environments, we compared our aggregate safety climate score for the JHH
with a distribution of safety climate scores from a cross cultural sample of 13 commercial airlines. The first seven items shown in table 2 are analogous to the
aviation safety climate scale. For comparisons between aviation and medicine, a mean summary score of these safety climate items was calculated using the JHH
data. Figure 1 shows the relative position of safety climate at the JHH in a distribution of airlines from North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and the
8
Middle East. The safety climate at the JHH ranked highly in this distribution of safety climates from aviation.
Table 3 Percentage of respondents to the Strategies for Leadership Survey (SLS) who
perceived full or partial implementation of the safety item: stratified by Patient Safety
Committee and Management Committee*
Safety Management
Overall Committee Committee
(N = 23)* (N = 17) (N = 6)
(1) Leadership
Key aspect I: Demonstrate patient safety as a top 30 27* 36
leadership priority
Key aspect II: Promote a non-punitive culture for 41 35 58
sharing information and lessons learned
(2) Strategic planning
Key aspect I: Routinely conduct an organization wide 6 5 10
assessment of the risk of error and adverse events in
the care delivery process
Key aspect II: The organization actively evaluates the 2 3 0
competitive/collaborative environment and identifies
partners with whom to learn and share best practices
in clinical care
(3) Information and analysis
Key aspect: Analyze adverse events and identify trends 46 39 67
across events
(4) Human resources
Key aspect I: Establish rewards and recognition for 27 18 53
reporting errors and safety driven decision making
Key aspect II: Foster effective teamwork regardless 36 31 49
of a team member’s position of authority
(5) Process management
Key aspect: Implement care delivery process 39 36 48
improvements that avoid reliance on memory
and vigilance
(6) Patient and family involvement
Key aspect: Engage patients and families in care 45 41 57
delivery, workflow, process, design and feedback
*Percentage of participants who responded either 4 or 5 to the survey that has the following possible responses:
1 = there has been no discussion around this activity; 2 = this activity is under discussion but there is no
implementation; 3 = this activity is partially implemented in some or all areas of the organization; 4 = this activity is
fully implemented in some areas of the organization; 5 = this activity is fully implemented throughout the
organization.
p,0.05 (x2 test for differences) in any provider type compared with others.
www.qshc.com
Downloaded from http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ on July 9, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
Evaluating the culture of safety 409
Table 4 Percentage of respondents to the Strategies for Leadership Survey (SLS) who
perceived no discussion or implementation plan for each item: stratified by Patient Safety
Committee and Management Committee*
Management
Overall Safety Committee Committee
(N = 23) (N = 17) (N = 6)
(1) Leadership
Key aspect I: Demonstrate patient safety as a top 25 33* 2
leadership priority
Key aspect II: Promote a non-punitive culture for sharing 32 41 6
information and lessons learned
(2) Strategic planning
Key aspect I: Routinely conduct an organization 58 69 27
wide assessment of the risk of error and adverse events
in the care delivery process
Key aspect II: The organization actively evaluates 60 74 29
the competitive/collaborative environment and identifies
partners with whom to learn and share
best practices in clinical care
(3) Information and analysis 23 28 10
Key aspect: Analyze adverse events and identify trends
across events
(4) Human resources
Key aspect I: Establish rewards and recognition for 43 55 10
reporting errors and safety driven decision making
Key aspect II: Foster effective teamwork regardless of a 36 44 14
team member’s position of authority
(5) Process management
Key aspect: Implement care delivery process improvements 24 30 4
that avoid reliance on memory and vigilance
(6) Patient and family involvement
Key aspect: Engage patients and families in care delivery, 22 28 3
workflow, process, design and feedback
*Percentage of participants who responded either 1 or 2 to the survey that has the following possible responses:
1 = there has been no discussion around this activity; 2 = this activity is under discussion but there is no
implementation; 3 = this activity is partially implemented in some or all areas of the organization; 4 = this activity is
fully implemented in some areas of the organization; 5 = this activity is fully implemented throughout the
organization.
p,0.05 (x2 test for differences) in any provider type compared with others.
rounds where senior leaders ‘‘adopt’’ a functional unit. We managers; and in-services to nurses on approximately 15
are currently pilot testing the senior leader unit adoption nursing units. Education on the science of safety has
program in ICUs and operating rooms at the JHH. In enhanced the capacity of our staff to focus on system factors
addition, we participated in the Institute for Healthcare related to safety.
Improvement’s ‘‘Quantum Leaps in Patient Safety’’ effort. There are, however, several limitations to our study. Firstly,
Table 5 lists the initiatives that have resulted from our cul- we did not formally evaluate the performance properties of
tural assessment. To evaluate the impact of these improvement the survey instruments. Nonetheless, both surveys have been
efforts, we plan to repeat the cultural assessment in one year. widely used, pilot tested, and refined. The second limitation
A major initiative was to educate staff on the science is the potential for bias in the sampling frame. We sought
related to safety. This initiative has resulted in safety talks at input from a diverse group of professionals at the JHH
the Dean’s retreat comprising department chairs and other (across departments and clinical nursing units) in the hope
senior executives; the Johns Hopkins Medicine Strategic of obtaining an accurate view of our organizational culture.
Planning retreat of leaders throughout Johns Hopkins Nonetheless, because we did not randomly select staff, we
Medicine; grand rounds in 10 academic departments; the may have introduced selection bias. As a result, we were
Nursing Leadership Forum which comprised nursing unit unable to investigate rigorously the extent of within-group
variability in perceptions of safety climate within a provider
type or work unit (otherwise known as ‘‘climate strength’’22).
100
In addition, because the safety culture survey was adminis-
90 tered by the committee seeking the information, the
80 responses may be more positive than if a third party had
Scale 0100
70
implemented this tool. Nonetheless, the pre- and post-
60
intervention surveys were administered the same way, with
50
40
post-intervention scores being significantly higher than pre-
30 intervention scores. We do not have data available to
20 compare survey respondents to all physicians and staff at
10 Johns Hopkins. The sample also did not include house staff
0 physicians who are primarily responsible for many aspects of
s
st
5
in
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
k
E
p
p
c
si
si
p
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ro
ro
ro
A
o
id
e
u
m
m
M
E
E
s
A
.
.
n
N
.
.
h
N
Jo
www.qshc.com
Downloaded from http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ on July 9, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
410 Pronovost, Weast, Holzmueller, et al
www.qshc.com
Downloaded from http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ on July 9, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
These include:
References This article cites 12 articles, 2 of which you can access for free at:
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/12/6/405#BIBL
Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
service box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes