Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs Adm > v.24(3) > 1098655

Choi, Kang, Yang, and Lim: Patient Safety Perception of Nurses as related to Patient Safety Management Performance in Tertiary Hospitals

Abstract

Purpose:

This study was done to identify the relationship between perception of the importance and job performance of patient safety management.

Methods:

This descriptive study was performed using self-report questionnaires. Participants were 200 nurses who worked at 4 tertiary university hospitals where data were collected for 4 weeks in June 2016.

Results:

The scores for perception and performance were 4.28 and 4.37 points. A positive correlation was found between perception of the importance of patient safety management and job performance (r=.74, p<.001). In regression analysis, the perception of the importance of patient safety management (β=.74, p<.001) was a significant factor in the performance of patient safety management. The regression model was statistically significant (F=134.43, p<.001) and the explanatory power of the model was 58%.

Conclusion:

The findings from this study indicate a need to develop strategies to improve perception of the importance of patient safety management. Also, this data should be used as a basis to develop education programs to improve awareness of the importance of patient safety management.

REFERENCES

1. Cho HN, Shin HS. A Systemic review of published studies on patient safety in Korea. Journal of Korean Academy of Dental Administration. 2014; 2(1):61–82.
2. Korea Institute for Healthcare Accreditation. What is the accreditation program for healthcare organizations? [Internet]. Seoul: Korea Institute for Healthcare Accreditation;[cited December 23, 2017]. Available from:. https://www.koiha.or.kr/member/en/contents/ensub02/ensub02_01_01.do.
3. Jeong J, Seo YJ, Nam EW. Factors affecting patient safety management activities at nursing divisions of two university hospitals. Korean Journal of Hospital Management. 2006; 11(1):91–109.
4. Sherwood G. Quality and safety in nursing education: The QSEN project. Cherry B, Jacob SR, editors. Contemporary nursing. 6th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Inc.;2014. p. 393–404.
5. Manning ML, Frisby AJ. Multimethod teaching strategies to integrate selected QSEN competencies in a doctor of nursing practice distance education program. Nurse Outlook. 2011; 59:166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2011.01.001.
crossref
6. Yoo HN, Lee HY. The initial application of the patient safety management activity scale (PSM-A) for nursing students: Brief on reliability and validity. Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society. 2014; 16(6):3423–3436.
7. Jang JH, Shin SH. Effects of psychiatric nurses' perception of the healthcare accreditation system and safety climate on patient safety management activities. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2016; 25(4):375–385. https://doi.org/10.12934/jkpmhn.2016.25.4.375.
crossref
8. Park SJ, Choi EH, Lee KS, Chung KA. A study on perception and nursing activity for patient safety of operating room nurses. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 2016; 17(11):332–339. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2016.17.11.332.
crossref
9. Lee JM, Hong SJ, Park MH. Perception of patient safety culture and safety care activity among ICU nurses. Journal of Safety and Crisis Management. 2013; 9(11):273–290.
10. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Reducing errors in health care: Research in action [Internet]. [updated April 2000; cited February 8, 2017]. Available from:. https://archive.ahrq.gov/qual/errors.htm.
11. Park MJ, Kim IS, Ham YL. Development of a perception of importance on patient safety management scale (PI-PSM) for hospital employee. Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2013; 13(5):332–341. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.05.332.
12. Lee GO. Study on nurse manager leadership and patient safety-related nursing activities [master's thesis]. Seoul: Kyung Hee University;2009. p. 1–50.
13. Lee YJ. Patient Safety culture and management activities perceived by hospital nurses [master's thesis]. Daejeon: Eulji University;2011. p. 1–62.
14. Hwang Y, Kim MY, Kang JS. Perception and performance about patient safety management for hospital nurses. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology. 2016; 6(12):39–54. https://doi.org/10.14257/AJMAHS.2016.12.29.
crossref
15. Jang HM, Park JY, Choi YJ, Park SW, Lim HN. Effect of general hospital nurses' perception of patient safety culture and burnout on safety management activities. Journal of Korean Academy Nursing Administration. 2016; 22(3):239–250. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2016.22.3.239.
crossref
16. Kim HY, Kim HS. Effects of perceived patient safety culture on safety nursing activities in the general hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Academy Nursing Administration. 2011; 17(4):413–422. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2011.17.4.413.
crossref
17. Choi SH, Lee HY. Factors affecting nursing students' practice of patient safety management in clinical practicum. Journal of Korean Academy Nursing Administration. 2015; 21(2):184–192. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2015.21.2.184.
crossref
18. Kwon JH, Kang EH, Lee YM. Effect of nurses' organizational commitment in relationship between perception on safety culture and patient safety management activities in tertiary hospitals. Journal of The Korean Data Analysis Society. 2016; 18(4):2231–2244.
19. Kim IS, Park MJ, Park MY, Yoo HN, Choi JH. Factors affecting the perception of importance and practice of patient safety management among hospital employees in Korea. Asian Nursing Research. 2013; 7:26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2013.01.001.
crossref
20. Son YL. The impact of perceived patient safety culture on safety care activities in general hospital nurse's. Journal of the Korea Academy Industrial Cooperation Society. 2016; 17(3):509–517. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2016.17.3.509.
crossref
21. Lim JY, Kim JH, Kim GM, Yoo JH. Effect of cost perception and cost attitude on cost management behavior among clinical nurses. Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2016; 16(5):115–123. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.05.113.
crossref

Table 1.
Difference between Perception of Importance and Performance of PSM (N=199)
Variables Categories n(%) Perception Performance
M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p)
Age (year) <30 138 (69.4) 4.19±0.54a 6.39 4.33±0.39a 3.16
30~39 46 (23.1) 4.46±0.43a,b (.002) 4.43±0.34a,b (.045)
≥40 15 (7.5) 4.52±0.42b 4.56±0.32b
Education level College 56 (28.2) 4.37±0.50 2.15 4.39±0.37 0.92
Bachelor 132 (66.3) 4.23±0.54 (.120) 4.35±0.38 (.400)
Master 11 (5.5) 4.46±0.46 4.50±0.38
Marital status Married 145 (72.9) 4.23±0.53 -2.15 4.34±0.38 -1.78
Not married 54 (27.1) 4.41±0.49 (.033) 4.45±0.38 (.077)
Position Staff 159 (79.9) 4.25±0.53 1.94 4.35±0.37 1.85
Charge 35 (17.6) 4.36±0.48 (.147) 4.42±0.44 (.161)
Head 5 (2.5) 4.65±0.49 4.64±0.19
Ward Medicine 51 (25.6) 4.25±0.50 0.36 4.38±0.38 0.60
Surgical 60 (30.2) 4.28±0.58 (.785) 4.33±0.39 (.618)
ICU 52 (26.1) 4.34±0.49 4.42±0.38
Pediatric 36 (18.1) 4.24±0.53 4.35±0.37
Clinical experience (year) <1 1~5 6~10 ≥11 35 96 39 29 (17.6) (48.2) (19.6) (14.6) 4.19±0.55a 4.20±0.54a 4.36±0.47a,b 4.53±0.45b 3.68 (.013) 4.36±0.35 4.33±0.39 4.36±0.39 4.53±0.35 2.04 (.109)
Nursing care service ward Yes 38 (19.1) 4.23±0.56 -0.63 4.22±0.40 -2.71
No 161 (80.9) 4.29±0.52 (.531) 4.41±0.37 (.007)
Has experience in preceptor role Yes 102 (51.3) 4.39±0.46 2.96 4.41±0.36 1.33
No 97 (48.7) 4.17±0.57 (.003) 4.33±0.40 (.184)
Has experience of reporting a patient Yes 127 (63.8) 4.24±0.53 -1.42 4.36±0.39 -0.33
safety accident No 72 (36.2) 4.35±0.51 (.158) 4.38±0.36 (.740)
Has experience of reporting a patient Yes 159 (79.9) 4.30±0.53 1.16 4.38±0.38 0.73
safety accident by a colleague No 40 (20.1) 4.19±0.52 (.248) 4.33±0.37 (.469)
Has experience of near miss Yes 132 (66.3) 4.28±0.52 -0.16 4.37±0.37 0.11
No 67 (33.7) 4.29±0.55 (.870) 4.37±0.40 (.910)
Has experience of patient safety Yes 194 (97.5) 4.28±0.53 -0.52 4.37±0.38 -1.01
education No 5 (2.5) 4.40±0.35 (.606) 4.54±0.22 (.314)
Has experience of committee on Yes 119 (59.8) 4.33±0.50 1.50 4.40±0.35 1.41
patient safety care No 80 (40.2) 4.21±0.56 (.134) 4.32±0.42 (.161)
Number of patients in <10 81 (40.7) 4.33±0.52 0.65 4.37±0.40 0.15
charge 10~15 96 (48.2) 4.26±0.53 (.523) 4.38±0.38 (.858)
≥16 22 (11.1) 4.20±0.53 4.33±0.33

PSM=Patient safety management; ICU=Intensive care unit, post hoc test

(a,b) Scheffe.

Table 2.
Score of Nurses' Perception of Importance and Performance of PSM (N=199)
Variables Categories M±SD Min Max
Perception Total 4.28±0.53 2.95 5.00
Concerned about PSM 4.24±0.58 2.71 5.00
Confidence about PSM 4.16±0.62 2.80 5.00
Will for PSM 4.23±0.60 2.80 5.00
Recognition of PSM 4.56±0.49 3.00 5.00
Performance Total 4.37±0.38 3.33 4.98
Patient identity check 4.41±0.39 3.29 5.00
Verbal order process 4.49±0.58 2.67 5.00
Medicine administration 4.10±0.51 2.86 5.00
Operation & surgical procedure 4.41±0.55 3.00 5.00
Safety environment 4.05±0.70 1.67 5.00
Prevention of infection 4.62±0.48 2.67 5.00
Prevention of accidental falls 4.71±0.43 3.67 5.00
Prevention of bedsores 4.64±0.50 3.00 5.00
Emergency situation 4.30±0.57 2.57 5.00

PSM=Patient safety management.

Table 3.
Difference of Nurses' Performance according to Perception of Importance of PSM (N=199)
Variable Categories Perception of importance t p
High (n=100) Low (n=99)
M±SD M±SD
Performance Total 4.61±0.23 4.13±0.35 -11.30 <.001
Patient identity check 4.55±0.31 4.27±0.42 -5.43 <.001
Verbal order process 4.76±0.39 4.23±0.63 -7.17 <.001
Medicine administration 4.31±0.49 3.89±0.45 -6.27 <.001
Operation & surgical procedure 4.65±0.43 4.16±0.55 -6.98 <.001
Safety environment 4.33±0.64 3.76±0.64 -6.25 <.001
Prevention of Infection 4.87±0.27 4.37±0.52 -8.45 <.001
Prevention of accidental falls 4.94±0.20 4.49±0.47 -8.82 <.001
Prevention of bedsores 4.90±0.26 4.37±0.53 -8.96 <.001
Emergency situation 4.62±0.41 3.98±0.52 -9.64 <.001

PSM=Patient safety management.

Table 4.
Correlation between Performance and Perception of Importance of PSM (N=199)
Variables Perception of importance Concern Confidence Will Recognition
r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p)
Performance .74 (<.001) .68 (<.001) .67 (<.001) .69 (<.001) .67 (<.001)
Patient identity check .47 (<.001) .40 (<.001) .41 (<.001) .38 (<.001) .56 (<.001)
Verbal order process .53 (<.001) .53 (<.001) .42 (<.001) .48 (<.001) .48 (<.001)
Medicine administration .51 (<.001) .51 (<.001) .48 (<.001) .44 (<.001) .37 (<.001)
Operation & surgical procedure .57 (<.001) .56 (<.001) .50 (<.001) .51 (<.001) .50 (<.001)
Safety environment .46 (<.001) .40 (<.001) .41 (<.001) .49 (<.001) .35 (<.001)
Prevention of infection .60 (<.001) .53 (<.001) .56 (<.001) .55 (<.001) .57 (<.001)
Prevention of accidental falls .62 (<.001) .53 (<.001) .58 (<.001) .57 (<.001) .62 (<.001)
Prevention of bedsores .56 (<.001) .51 (<.001) .49 (<.001) .51 (<.001) .56 (<.001)
Emergency situation .65 (<.001) .54 (<.001) .62 (<.001) .67 (<.001) .55 (<.001)

PSM=Patient safety management.

Table 5.
Predictors of Performance on PSM (N=199)
Variables Performance
B SE β t (p) Tolerance VIF
Intercept 2.11 .15 14.49 (<.001)
Perception of importance 0.53 .03 .74 15.88 (<.001) 1.00 1.00
Nursing care service ward* -0.15 .05 -.16 -3.37 (.001) 1.00 1.00
R2=.58, Adjusted R2=.57, F=134.43, p<.001

*Reference=No; PSM=Patient safety management.

TOOLS
Similar articles