Search

Background: Improving health, patient and system outcomes through a practice-based research agenda requires infrastructural supports, leadership and capacity building approaches, at both the individual and organisational levels. Embedding research as normal nursing and midwifery practice requires a flexible approach that is responsive to the diverse clinical contexts within which care is delivered and the variable research skills and interest of clinicians. This paper reports the study protocol for research being undertaken in a Local Health District (LHD) in New South Wales (NSW) Australia. The study aims to evaluate existing nursing and midwifery research activity, culture, capacity and capability across the LHD. This information, in addition to input from key stakeholders will be used to develop a responsive, productive and sustainable research capacity building framework aimed at enculturating practice-based research activities within and across diverse clinical settings of the LHD. Methods: A three-phased, sequential mixed-methods action research design underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Participants will be nursing and midwifery clinicians and managers across rural and metropolitan services. A combination of survey, focus group, individual interviews and peer supported action-learning groups will be used to gather data. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, correlation and regression, together with thematic analysis of qualitative data to produce an integrated report. Discussion: Understanding the current research activity and capacity of nurses and midwives, together with organisational supports and culture is essential to developing a productive and sustainable research environment. However, knowledge alone will not bring about change. This study will move beyond description of barriers to research participation for nurses and midwives and the promulgation of various capacity building frameworks to employ a theory driven action-oriented approach to normalisation of nursing and midwifery research practice. In doing so, our aim is to make possible the utilisation, generation and translation of practice based research that informs improved patient and service delivery outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The gradual impact of the Covid-19 pandemic had important effects on routines in surgical environments. In order to cope with the impact and re-establish anaesthesiology and surgery procedures, it was imperative to pursue in-depth studies with a view to ensuring safe surgical care, reducing hazards, as well as protecting the health, safety and wellbeing of the health personnel involved. The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitative and qualitative approaches to domains of safety climate among multi-professional staffs of surgical centres during the Covid-19 pandemic and to identify intersections. Methods: This mixed-method project employed a concomitant triangulation strategy on a quantitative approach in an exploratory, descriptive, cross-sectional study, as well as a qualitative approach by way of a descriptive study. Data were collected using the validated, self-applicable Safety Attitudes Questionnaire/Operating Room (SAQ/OR) questionnaire and a semi-structured interview script. The 144 participants were the surgical, anaesthesiology, nursing and support teams working in the surgical centre during the Covid-19 pandemic. Results: The study found an overall safety climate score of 61.94, the highest-scoring domain being 'Communication in the surgical environment' (77.91) and the lowest, 'Perception of professional performance' (23.60). On integrating the results, a difference was found between the domains 'Communication in the surgical environment' and 'Working conditions'. However, there was intersection by the 'Perception of professional performance' domain, which permeated important categories of the qualitative analysis. Conclusions: For care practice, it is hoped to encourage improved patient safety, educational interventions to strengthen the patient safety climate and promote in-job wellbeing on the job for health personnel working in surgical centres. It is suggested that further studies explore the subject in greater depth among several surgical centres with mixed methods, so as to permit future comparisons and to monitor the evolving maturity of safety climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To date, there has been no universal and validated tool for measuring safety culture in Korea. The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC), version 2.0 was released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in 2019, but it had not yet been translated and assessed for use in Korea. The aim of this study was to assess the content validity and other psychometric properties of the Korean-language version of the HSOPSC 2.0. Methods: Instrument adaptation was performed using a committee-based translation, cognitive interviews, and expert panel reviews. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on data obtained through an online survey from 526 registered nurses who worked on medical-surgical units in three teaching hospitals in South Korea. Results: One item was dropped during the translation and adaption phase of the study as being a poor fit for the Korean healthcare context, resulting in excellent content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the factorial structure of the K-HSOPSC 2.0. Correlations with an overall measure of patient safety provided further evidence of construct validity. Additionally, in comparing the results of this current study to those from U.S. research using the HSOPSC 2.0, it was found that Korean nurses assigned less positive scores to all dimensions of patient safety culture. Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence of the content validity, reliability, and construct validity of the K-HOSPSC 2.0 for measuring patient safety culture in South Korean hospitals. Hospital administrators can use this tool to assess safety culture and identify areas for improvement to enhance patient safety and quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) is widely utilized in multiple languages across the world. Despite culture and language variations, research studies from Latin America use the Spanish language HSOPSC validated for Spain and the United States. Yet, these studies fail to report the translation method, cultural adaptation process, and the equivalence assessment strategy. As such, the psychometric properties of the HSOPSC are not well demonstrated for cross-cultural research in Latin America, including Peru. The purpose of this study was to develop a target-language HSOPSC for cross-cultural research in Peru that asks the same questions, in the same manner, with the same intended meaning, as the source instrument. Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach adapted from the translation guideline recommended by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The 3-phase, 7-step process incorporated translation techniques, pilot testing, cognitive interviews, clinical participant review, and subject matter expert evaluation. Results: The instrument was translated and evaluated in 3 rounds of cognitive interview (CI). There were 37 problem items identified in round 1 (14 clarity, 12 cultural, 11 mixed); and resolved to 4 problems by round 3. The pilot-testing language clarity inter-rater reliability was S-CVI/Avg = 0.97 and S-CVI/UA = 0.86; and S-CVI/Avg = 0.96 and S-CVI/UA = 0.83 for cultural relevance. Subject matter expert agreement in matching items to the correct dimensions was substantially equivalent (Kappa = 0.72). Only 1 of 12 dimensions had a low Kappa (0.39), borderline fair to moderate. The remaining dimensions performed well (7 = almost perfect, 2 = substantial, and 2 = moderate). Conclusions: The HSOPSC instrument developed for Peru was markedly different from the other Spanish-language versions. The resulting items were equivalent in meaning to the source, despite the new language and different cultural context. The analysis identified negatively worded items were problematic for target-language translation. With the limited literature about negatively worded items in the context of cross-cultural research, further research is necessary to evaluate this finding and the recommendation to include negatively worded items in instruments. This study demonstrates cross-cultural research with translated instruments should adhere to established guidelines, with cognitive interviews, based on evidence-based strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]