Search

Objective: This study aimed to refine and validate a tool to measure safety culture and leadership in Australian hospitals.Design: The clinician safety culture and leadership questionnaire was constructed by combining and refining the following two previously validated scales: Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and the Leadership Effectiveness Survey. Statistical processes were used to explore the factor structure, reliability, validity and descriptive statistics of the new instrument.Setting: Thirty-two large Australian public hospitals.Participants: 1382 clinicians (doctors, nurses and allied health professionals).Main Outcome Measure(s): Descriptive statistics, structure and validity of clinician safety culture and leadership scale.Results: We received 1334 valid responses from participants. The distribution of ratings was left-skewed, with a small ceiling effect, meaning that scores were clustered toward the high end of the scale. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we confirmed the structure of the three scales as a combined measure of safety culture and leadership. The data were divided into equal calibration and validation datasets. For the calibration dataset, the Chi-square: df ratio was 4.4, the root mean square error of approximation RMSEA (a measure of spread of the data) was 0.071, the standardized root mean square residual SRMR (an absolute measure of the fit of the data) was 0.058 and the Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) (another test confirming the fit of the data) was 0.82; while none of the indices suggested good fit, all but CFI fell within acceptable thresholds. All factors demonstrated adequate internal consistency and construct reliability, as desired. All three domains achieved discriminant validity through cross-loadings, meaning that the three domains were determined to be independent constructs. Results for the validation dataset were effectively identical to those found in the calibration dataset.Conclusions: While the model may benefit from additional refinement, we have validated the tool for measuring clinician safety culture and leadership in our Australian sample. The DUQuA safety culture and leadership scale can be used by Australian hospitals to assess clinician safety culture and leadership, and is readily modifiable for other health systems depending on their needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) project is a multisite, multi-level, cross-sectional study of 32 of the largest hospitals in Australia. This overview examines relationships between (i) organization-level quality management systems and department-level quality management strategies and (ii) patient-level measures (clinical treatment processes, patient-reported perceptions of care and clinical outcomes) within Australian hospitals.Design: We examined hospital quality improvement structures, processes and outcomes, collecting data at organization, department and patient levels for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture and stroke. Data sources included surveys of quality managers, clinicians and patients, hospital visits, medical record reviews and national databases. Outcomes data and patient admissions data were analysed. Relationships between measures were evaluated using multi-level models. We based the methods on the Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE) framework, extending that work in parts and customizing the design to Australian circumstances.Setting, Participants and Outcome Measures: The 32 hospitals, containing 119 participating departments, provided wide representation across metropolitan, inner and outer regional Australia. We obtained 31 quality management, 1334 clinician and 857 patient questionnaires, and conducted 2401 medical record reviews and 151 external assessments. External data via a secondary source comprised 14 460 index patient admissions across 14 031 individual patients. Associations between hospital, Emergency Department (ED) and department-level systems and strategies and five patient-level outcomes were assessed: 19 of 165 associations (11.5%) were statistically significant, 12 of 79 positive associations (15.2%) and 7 of 85 negative associations (8.2%).Results: We did not find clear relationships between hospital-level quality management systems, ED or department quality strategies and patient-level outcomes. ED-level clinical reviews were related to adherence to clinical practice guidelines for AMI, hip fracture and stroke, but in different directions. The results, when considered alongside the DUQuE results, are suggestive that front line interventions may be more influential than department-level interventions when shaping quality of care and that multi-pronged strategies are needed. Benchmark reports were sent to each participating hospital, stimulating targeted quality improvement activities.Conclusions: We found no compelling relationships between the way care is organized and the quality of care across three targeted patient-level outcome conditions. The study was cross-sectional, and thus we recommend that the relationships studied should be assessed for changes across time. Tracking care longitudinally so that quality improvement activities are monitored and fed back to participants is an important initiative that should be given priority as health systems strive to develop their capacity for quality improvement over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With this paper, we initiate the Supplement on Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA). DUQuA is an at-scale, cross-sectional research programme examining the quality activities in 32 large hospitals across Australia. It is based on, with suitable modifications and extensions, the Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) research programme, also published as a Supplement in this Journal, in 2014. First, we briefly discuss key data about Australia, the health of its population and its health system. Then, to provide context for the work, we discuss previous activities on the quality of care and improvement leading up to the DUQuA studies. Next, we present a selection of key interventional studies and policy and institutional initiatives to date. Finally, we conclude by outlining, in brief, the aims and scope of the articles that follow in the Supplement. This first article acts as a framing vehicle for the DUQuA studies as a whole. Aggregated, the series of papers collectively attempts an answer to the questions: what is the relationship between quality strategies, both hospital-wide and at department level? and what are the relationships between the way care is organised, and the actual quality of care as delivered? Papers in the Supplement deal with a multiplicity of issues including: how the DUQuA investigators made progress over time, what the results mean in context, the scales designed or modified along the way for measuring the quality of care, methodological considerations and provision of lessons learnt for the benefit of future researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patients can provide a unique perspective on the safety of care in hospitals. Understanding that the extent to which the way hospitals are organized for quality and safety is associated with patient perceptions of care is becoming increasingly valued and necessary for the direction of targeted interventions across healthcare systems. The UK-developed patient measure of safety (PMOS) assesses eight domains of ward safety from the patient point of view and has recently been adapted and piloted in Australia. The aim of this study is to test the psychometric properties of PMOS-Australia (PMOS-A) amongst a large cohort of hospitalized patients.Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire validation assessment.Setting and Participants: As part of the DUQuA project, the PMOS-A survey was distributed within acute myocardial infarction, hip fracture and stroke departments across 32 large public hospitals in Australia. Patients could complete the PMOS-A independently, or request the assistance of a family member/guardian, or staff on the wards-space was included to record mode of completion.Main Outcome Measures: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken on a calibration sample to generate the model, and a validation sample was used to cross-validate the model. A subset of only those participants who received assistance for PMOS-A completion was also tested using CFA on a calibration and validation sample. Model fit indices (chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio [Chi-square:DF], root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA], comparative fit indices [CFI], standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR]), Cronbach's α, average inter-item correlations, construct reliability and cross-loadings were examined with reference to recommended thresholds to establish the extent of convergent validity and discriminant validity. A marker of criterion validity was assessed through testing associations between the PMOS-A and adherence to clinical guidelines.Results: Across the calibration and validation samples of the full (N = 911) and assisted completers only subset (N = 490), three (Chi-square:DF, SRMR, RMSEA) of the four indices consistently or almost always met thresholds for acceptable model fit. CFI indices did not meet the recommended limits (0.72-0.78, against a target > 0.9). Positive relationships were found for all tests between PMOS-A and adherence to clinical guidelines, and these were significant when assessed in the calibration datasets for the full and assisted completion samples.Conclusion: A sufficiently reliable and valid measure of patient perceptions of safety has been developed. These findings should provide adequate support to justify the use of this measure to assess patient perceptions of safety in Australian hospitals and can be modified for use elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]