Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCooper, Jeffrey B.
dc.contributor.authorBlum, Richard H.
dc.contributor.authorCarroll, John S.
dc.contributor.authorDershwitz, Mark
dc.contributor.authorFeinstein, David M.
dc.contributor.authorGaba, David M.
dc.contributor.authorMorey, John C.
dc.contributor.authorSingla, Aneesh K.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:07:58.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T15:37:48Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T15:37:48Z
dc.date.issued2008-02-01
dc.date.submitted2012-08-01
dc.identifier.citationAnesth Analg. 2008 Feb;106(2):574-84, table of contents. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000296462.39953.d3">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0003-2999 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1213/01.ane.0000296462.39953.d3
dc.identifier.pmid18227319
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/25800
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Safety climate is often measured via surveys to identify appropriate patient safety interventions. The introduction of an insurance premium incentive for simulation-based anesthesia crisis resource management (CRM) training motivated our naturalistic experiment to compare the safety climates of several departments and to assess the impact of the training. METHODS: We administered a 59-item survey to anesthesia providers in six academic anesthesia programs (Phase 1). Faculty in four of the programs subsequently participated in a CRM program using simulation. The survey was readministered 3 yr later (Phase 2). Factor analysis was used to create scales regarding common safety themes. Positive safety climate (% of respondents with positive safety attitudes) was computed for the scales to indicate the safety climate levels. RESULTS: The usable response rate was 44% (309/708) and 38% (293/772) in Phases 1 and 2 respectively. There was wide variation in response rates among hospitals and providers. Eight scales were identified. There were significantly different climate scores among hospitals but no difference between the trained and untrained cohorts. The positive safety climate scores varied from 6% to 94% on specific survey questions. Faculty and residents had significantly different perceptions of the degree to which residents are debriefed about their difficult clinical situations. CONCLUSIONS: Safety climate indicators can vary substantially among anesthesia practice groups. Scale scores and responses to specific questions can suggest practices for improvement. Overall safety climate is probably not a good criterion for assessing the impact of simulation-based CRM training. Training alone was insufficient to alter engrained behaviors in the absence of further reinforcing actions.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=18227319&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000296462.39953.d3
dc.subjectAnesthesia Department, Hospital
dc.subjectComputer Simulation
dc.subjectData Collection
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMedical Staff, Hospital
dc.subjectSafety
dc.subjectSafety Management
dc.subjectAnesthesiology
dc.titleDifferences in safety climate among hospital anesthesia departments and the effect of a realistic simulation-based training program
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleAnesthesia and analgesia
dc.source.volume106
dc.source.issue2
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/anesthesiology_pubs/6
dc.identifier.contextkey3168535
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: Safety climate is often measured via surveys to identify appropriate patient safety interventions. The introduction of an insurance premium incentive for simulation-based anesthesia crisis resource management (CRM) training motivated our naturalistic experiment to compare the safety climates of several departments and to assess the impact of the training.</p> <p>METHODS: We administered a 59-item survey to anesthesia providers in six academic anesthesia programs (Phase 1). Faculty in four of the programs subsequently participated in a CRM program using simulation. The survey was readministered 3 yr later (Phase 2). Factor analysis was used to create scales regarding common safety themes. Positive safety climate (% of respondents with positive safety attitudes) was computed for the scales to indicate the safety climate levels.</p> <p>RESULTS: The usable response rate was 44% (309/708) and 38% (293/772) in Phases 1 and 2 respectively. There was wide variation in response rates among hospitals and providers. Eight scales were identified. There were significantly different climate scores among hospitals but no difference between the trained and untrained cohorts. The positive safety climate scores varied from 6% to 94% on specific survey questions. Faculty and residents had significantly different perceptions of the degree to which residents are debriefed about their difficult clinical situations.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Safety climate indicators can vary substantially among anesthesia practice groups. Scale scores and responses to specific questions can suggest practices for improvement. Overall safety climate is probably not a good criterion for assessing the impact of simulation-based CRM training. Training alone was insufficient to alter engrained behaviors in the absence of further reinforcing actions.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathanesthesiology_pubs/6
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Anesthesiology
dc.source.pages574-84, table of contents


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record