Speaking up about patient safety concerns: view of nursing students.

BACKGROUND: "Speaking up" is considered an important patient safety behaviour. The main idea is to voice patient safety concerns; however, several studies revealed that the organisational culture can be obstructive. In previous studies, we already identified barriers for doctors, nurses and medical students. In the current study, we explore how nursing students use "speaking up" during their internship in an academic teaching hospital. METHODS: Between 2019 and 2020, 212 nursing students were invited to take part in the survey. The validated Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (SUPS-Q) was used to assess speaking up behaviours in nursing students. The SUPS-Q consisted of three behaviour related scales (11 items), three culture related scales (11 items), a question regarding barriers to speak up as well as a clinical vignette assessing a hypothetical speaking up situation. RESULTS: In total, 118 nursing students took part in the survey (response rate: 56%). Most of them noticed specific safety concerns, observed errors or rule violations. The vignette was seen as very realistic and harmful to the patient. However, the majority responded that they did not speak up and remained silent. They reported a rather discouraging environment and high levels of resignation towards speaking up. However, more advanced students were less likely to speak up than less advanced students (p = 0.027). Most relevant barriers were fear of negative reaction (64%), reaction not predictable (62%) and ineffectiveness (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey results of nursing students imply that speaking-up behaviours and remaining silent are common behaviours and coexist in the same individual. The clinical vignette and barriers to speaking up revealed that a hierarchical system does not support speaking-up behaviours. Organizational development is needed to foster professional teamwork, support attentive listening, encourage critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

A quality improvement initiative using peer audit and feedback to improve compliance.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) published by the WHO in 2009 is used as standard in surgery worldwide to reduce perioperative patient mortality. However, compliance with the SSC and quality of its application are often not satisfactory. Internal audits and feedbacks seem promising for improving SSC application. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether an intervention consisting of peer observation and immediate peer feedback can be implemented with high fidelity and acceptance. METHOD: Data were obtained from a national pilot programme that was initiated in Switzerland in 2018 to measure and improve compliance with the SSC using peer audit and feedback. A total of 11 hospitals with 14 sites implemented the full intervention. Each hospital formed an interprofessional project team that should perform at least 30 observations with feedback on SSC application documented in an observation tool developed specifically for this programme. Since the SSCs of the study hospitals differ greatly regarding checklist items, for each of the three SSC sections standard items were defined: four at Sign In, five at Team Time Out and two at Sign Out. Frequency analyses were performed for initiation characteristics, SSC application at item level, feedback characteristics and programme evaluation. RESULTS: The 11 hospitals documented 715 valid observations, and feedback on SSC application was provided for 79% of the observations. In 61%, all team members stopped their work for the SSC application, and in 71%, the items were read off from the checklist (instead of recalled from memory). On average, 86% of the standard items were read out by the checklist coordinator, whilst the two items at Sign Out were read out only in 60% and 74%. Additional visual checks with another source (e.g. patient wristband) took place in only 41%, and verbal confirmation of the items (by someone else other than the checklist coordinator) was obtained on an average of 76% across all three checklist sections. The surgical teams reacted positively in 64% to the peer feedback. CONCLUSION: Both implementation fidelity and acceptability of the intervention were high-the present intervention seems suitable for regular monitoring of the quality of SSC application with internal resources. Peer observation facilitated identifying weaknesses regarding the SSC process and application at item level. Across all hospitals, the Sign Out section in general, visual control for item checks and lack of work interruption of all team members during SSC application showed up as the main areas of improvement.

Analysis of 30 anaesthesia-related deaths in Germany between 2006 and 2015: An analysis of a closed claims database.

BACKGROUND: Anaesthesiology is one of the safest fields in medicine today in relation to mortality. Deaths directly because of anaesthesia have fortunately now become rare exceptions. Nevertheless, important findings can still be drawn from the rare deaths that still occur. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and analyse the causes of deaths related to anaesthesia alone over a 10-year period. DESIGN: Retrospective structured analysis of a database of medical liability claims. SETTING: Hospitals at all levels of care in Germany. PATIENTS: The database of a large insurance broker included data for 81 413 completed liability claims over the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015. Among 1914 cases associated with anaesthetic procedures, 56 deaths were identified. Of these, 30 clearly involved anaesthesia (Edwards category 1) and were included in the evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: None (retrospective database analysis). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Causes of anaesthesia-related death identified from medical records, court records, expert opinions and autopsy reports. RESULTS: The 30 deaths were analysed in detail at the case and document level. They included high proportions of 'potentially avoidable' deaths, at 86.6%, and what are termed 'never events', at 66.7%. Problems with the airway were the cause in 40% and problems with correct monitoring in 20%. In addition, communication problems were identified as a 'human factor' in 50% of the cases. CONCLUSION: The majority of the anaesthesia-related deaths investigated could very probably have been avoided with simple anaesthesiological measures if routine guidelines had been followed and current standards observed. Actions to be taken are inferred from these results, and recommendations are made. In future, greater care must be taken to ensure that the level of safety already achieved in anaesthesiology can be maintained despite demographic developments and increasing economic pressures.

Safe vincristine use in Switzerland: Still a long way to go?

BACKGROUND: Different international organizations recommend safety measures for the use of vincristine to prevent wrong route administrations. A central recommendation is to use infusion bags instead of syringes to prevent confusion with intrathecal chemotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the implementation of safety measures for vincristine and intrathecal chemotherapies in Switzerland. METHOD: We conducted a written survey among hospital pharmacies of all general care and pediatric hospitals in Switzerland (n = 102). A responsible person of each hospital pharmacy was invited by email to participate in the online survey in May 2018. RESULTS: Of 66 responding hospitals (response rate 65%), 27 have a hospital pharmacy preparing parenteral chemotherapy. All of these hospitals prepared vincristine in 2017, while 21 also prepared intrathecal chemotherapy. Of these 21, 16 hospitals prepared vincristine as syringes, with small volume syringes being the most widely distributed dosage form. A switch from syringes to infusion bags was discussed in seven hospitals, and discussions led to plans for switch in two. The most prevalent safety measures were labeling for vincristine and special delivery for intrathecal drugs. Of hospitals preparing both vincristine syringes and intrathecal chemotherapy, four reported to have no safety measures implemented neither for vincristine nor for intrathecal chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: International recommendations are not widely implemented in Swiss hospitals. Syringes are still in use and other safety measures are sparsely disseminated. Thus, Swiss vincristine patients are still at an increased risk for wrong route application. Recommendations have to be further disseminated and implementation could be enhanced.

Assessment of the safety climate in outpatient diagnostic services: Development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Safe practice and safety culture are important issues in outpatient diagnostic imaging services. As questionnaires assessing safety culture through the measurement of safety climate in this setting are not yet available, the present study aimed to develop and validate such an instrument. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After adaptation of an existing questionnaire and qualitative pretesting, the instrument was tested by collaborators from three outpatient imaging services in Switzerland. Results were first assessed using descriptive statistics. Scores of individual services were compared using a Wilcoxon test assessing differences between rank distributions. The final instrument was tested for validity using inter-rater agreement measures, such as reliability within groups (rWG), and an intraclass correlation coefficient measure (ICC(1)). These measures allowed the assessment of validity of aggregation into a total score (rWG(j)) and validated the instrument for its capacity to distinguish various safety climates of different groups by comparing inter-rater agreement in the overall sample to inter-rater agreement of individual services (rWG) and by measuring group effects (ICC(1)). Furthermore, the final instrument was tested for internal consistency and reliability using Cronbach's Alpha. RESULTS: Safety climate scores vary significantly between services. Inter-rater agreement measures show that item aggregation is justified and that the instrument distinguishes various patterns of safety climate. The final instrument proves to be valid, consistent and reliable. CONCLUSIONS: The final instrument presents a valid, consistent and reliable option to measure safety climate in outpatient diagnostic imaging services. Results can be used as a basis for quality improvement. KEY POINTS: • An adapted questionnaire that assesses safety climate in outpatient diagnostic imaging services was developed and tested in Switzerland. • Psychometric evaluation showed the questionnaire to be a valid, consistent and reliable instrument. • Results are of interest for imaging services as well as for stakeholders interested more globally in monitoring and quality improvement.

Implementation status of morbidity and mortality conferences in Swiss hospitals: a national cross-sectional survey study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the implementation status and current practice of morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) in Switzerland. DESIGN: A national cross-sectional online survey was conducted in spring 2017. The questionnaire focused on overall goals, structure and procedures of hospital M&MCs. Further topics included satisfaction, perceived effectiveness and support requirements. SETTING: A total of 913 chief physicians of surgery and internal medicine, and specialist fields of obstetrics and gynaecology, anaesthesiology and intensive care from Swiss acute care hospitals were invited to the survey. 321 completed the questionnaire, resulting in a 35.2% response rate. PARTICIPANTS: Chief or senior physicians in charge of the M&MCs in their department. INTERVENTION: No intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers and percentages of M&MCs within the surveyed disciplines fulfilling certain characteristics and procedural features. RESULTS: Among 321 respondents, the majority are conducting M&MCs in their departments. Within and between the medical disciplines considerable heterogeneity was found in structural and procedural features of M&MCs. Only a small part of the reported M&MCs is following a systematic approach and meeting recommended procedural features. Although the respondents are satisfied and perceive the M&MCs as an efficient tool, they agree that there is a need for professionalization and standardization. CONCLUSION: M&MCs are widely used to promote medical education, patient safety and quality improvements. However, the term M&MC seems to cover different types of meetings. Although the overall goals are similar, various types of M&MCs are used in practice and different objectives are pursued. Tools such as checklists, guidelines and templates are considered helpful.

Speaking up behaviors and safety climate in an Austrian university hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze speaking up behavior and safety climate with a validated questionnaire for the first time in an Austrian university hospital. DESIGN: Survey amongst healthcare workers (HCW). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a measure of internal consistencies of scales. Analysis of variance and t-tests were used. SETTING: The survey was conducted in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: About 2.149 HCW from three departments were asked to participate. INTERVENTION: To measure speaking up behavior and safety climate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To explore psychological safety, encouraging environment and resignation towards speaking up. RESULTS: About 859 evaluable questionnaires were returned (response rate: 40%). More than 50% of responders perceived specific concerns about patient safety within the last 4 weeks and observed a potential error or noticed rule violations. For the different items, between 16% and 42% of HCW reported that they remained silent though concerns for safety. In contrast, between 96% and 98% answered that they did speak up in certain situations. The psychological safety for speaking up was lower for HCW with a managerial function (P < 0.001). HCW with managerial functions perceived the environment as less encouraging to speak up (P < 0.05) than HCW without managerial function. CONCLUSIONS: We identified speaking up behaviors for the first time in an Austrian university hospital. Only moderately frequent concerns were in conflict with frequent speaking up behaviors. These results clearly show that a paradigm shift is needed to increase speaking up culture.

[Medication safety in Switzerland: Where are we today?] / Medikationssicherheit: Wo steht die Schweiz?

Empirical research shows that medication safety is an urgent area of concern in the Swiss healthcare system. Adverse drug events and medication errors are common and risks such as polypharmacy are widespread. No comprehensive national strategy explicitly dedicated to medication safety exists in Switzerland. The federalist system of government with relative autonomy of the cantons relating to healthcare laws influences the implementation of national healthcare reforms, also to the disadvantage of medication safety. Direct dispensing of drugs by the prescribing physician is permitted in almost all German-speaking cantons. This special feature of the Swiss system implies specific challenges for medication safety. Nonetheless, there is an increasing number of national activities dealing with various aspects of medication safety, such as the "progress!" programmes within the National Quality Strategy. Within the National Research Programme "Smarter Health Care" (NRP 74) of the Swiss National Science Foundation, several research projects are currently focusing on medication safety. Clinical pharmacy activities in hospitals are relatively widespread. In the primary care sector, pharmaceutical care practice and the corresponding competencies for pharmacists are being further developed. However, a comprehensive strategy, priority-setting and effectiveness studies involving all stakeholders are required in order for the Swiss healthcare system, to meet the challenges facing medication safety in a forward-looking manner.

Patient safety in the care of mentally ill people in Switzerland: Action plan 2016 / Patientensicherheit in der Versorgung psychisch erkrankter Menschen in der Schweiz: Aktionsplan 2016

Background: Patient safety in mental healthcare has not attracted great attention yet, although the burden and the prevalence of mental diseases are high. The risk of errors with potential for harm of patients, such as aggression against self and others or non-drug treatment errors is particularly high in this vulnerable group. Aim: To develop priority topics and strategies for action to foster patient safety in mental healthcare. Method: The Swiss patient safety foundation together with experts conducted round table discussions and a Delphi questionnaire to define topics along the treatment pathway, and to prioritise these topics. Finally, fields of action were developed. Results: An action plan was developed including the definition and prioritization of 9 topics where errors may occur. A global rating task revealed errors concerning diagnostics and structural errors as most important. This led to the development of 4 fields of action (awareness raising, research, implementation, and education and training) including practice-oriented potential starting points to enhance patient safety. Conclusions: The action plan highlights issues of high concern for patient safety in mental healthcare. It serves as a starting point for the development of strategies for action as well as of concrete activities.

Using the theory of planned behaviour to model antecedents of surgical checklist use: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with surgical checklist use remains an obstacle in the context of checklist implementation programs. The theory of planned behaviour was applied to analyse attitudes, perceived behaviour control, and norms as psychological antecedents of individuals' intentions to use the checklist. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study with staff (N = 866) of 10 Swiss hospitals was conducted in German and French. Group mean differences between individuals with and without managerial function were computed. Structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis was applied to investigate the structural relation between attitudes, perceived behaviour control, norms, and intentions. RESULTS: Significant mean differences in favour of individuals with managerial function emerged for norms, perceived behavioural control, and intentions, but not for attitudes. Attitudes and perceived behavioural control had a significant direct effect on intentions whereas norms had not. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with managerial function exhibit stronger perceived behavioural control, stronger norms, and stronger intentions. This could be applied in facilitating checklist implementation. The structural model of the theory of planned behaviour remains stable across groups, indicating a valid model to describe antecedents of intentions in the context of surgical checklist implementation.

Disclosing and reporting medical errors: Cross-sectional survey of Swiss anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication, particularly concerning disclosing errors to patients. OBJECTIVE: To characterise anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients and reporting errors within the hospital, and to examine factors influencing their willingness to disclose or report errors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Switzerland's five university hospitals' departments of anaesthesia in 2012/2013. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and eighty-one clinically active anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication. RESULTS: The overall response rate of the survey was 52% (281/542). Respondents broadly endorsed disclosing harmful errors to patients (100% serious, 77% minor errors, 19% near misses), but also reported factors that might make them less likely to actually disclose such errors. Only 12% of respondents had previously received training on how to disclose errors to patients, although 93% were interested in receiving training. Overall, 97% of respondents agreed that serious errors should be reported, but willingness to report minor errors (74%) and near misses (59%) was lower. Respondents were more likely to strongly agree that serious errors should be reported if they also thought that their hospital would implement systematic changes after errors were reported [(odds ratio, 2.097 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 3.81)]. Significant differences in attitudes between departments regarding error disclosure and reporting were noted. CONCLUSION: Willingness to disclose or report errors varied widely between hospitals. Thus, heads of department and hospital chiefs need to be aware of the importance of local culture when it comes to error communication. Error disclosure training and improving feedback on how error reports are being used to improve patient safety may also be important steps in increasing anaesthesiologists' communication of errors.

[In the aftermath of medical error: caring for patients, family, and the healthcare workers involved]. / Nach dem Behandlungsfehler : Umgang mit Patienten, Angehörigen und dem involvierten Personal.

Medical errors, in particular those resulting in harm, pose a serious situation for patients ("first victims") and the healthcare workers involved ("second victims") and can have long-lasting and distressing consequences. To prevent a second traumatization, appropriate and empathic interaction with all persons involved is essential besides error analysis. Patients share a nearly universal, broad preference for a complete disclosure of incidents, regardless of age, gender, or education. This includes the personal, timely and unambiguous disclosure of the adverse event, information relating to the event, its causes and consequences, and an apology and sincere expression of regret. While the majority of healthcare professionals generally support and honest and open disclosure of adverse events, they also face various barriers which impede the disclosure (e.g., fear of legal consequences). Despite its essential importance, disclosure of adverse events in practice occurs in ways that are rarely acceptable to patients and their families. The staff involved often experiences acute distress and an intense emotional response to the event, which may become chronic and increase the risk of depression, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorders. Communication with peers is vital for people to be able to cope constructively and protectively with harmful errors. Survey studies among healthcare workers show, however, that they often do not receive sufficient individual and institutional support. Healthcare organizations should prepare for medical errors and harmful events and implement a communication plan and a support system that covers the requirements and different needs of patients and the staff involved.

Risk factors for patient-reported medical errors in eleven countries.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify common risk factors for patient-reported medical errors across countries. In country-level analyses, differences in risks associated with error between health care systems were investigated. The joint effects of risks on error-reporting probability were modelled for hypothetical patients with different health care utilization patterns. DESIGN: Data from the Commonwealth Fund's 2010 lnternational Survey of the General Public's Views of their Health Care System's Performance in 11 Countries. SETTING: Representative population samples of 11 countries were surveyed (total sample = 19,738 adults). Utilization of health care, coordination of care problems and reported errors were assessed. Regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for patients' reports of medical, medication and laboratory errors across countries and in country-specific models. RESULTS: Error was reported by 11.2% of patients but with marked differences between countries (range: 5.4-17.0%). Poor coordination of care was reported by 27.3%. The risk of patient-reported error was determined mainly by health care utilization: Emergency care (OR = 1.7, P < 0.001), hospitalization (OR = 1.6, P < 0.001) and the number of providers involved (OR three doctors = 2.0, P < 0.001) are important predictors. Poor care coordination is the single most important risk factor for reporting error (OR = 3.9, P < 0.001). Country-specific models yielded common and country-specific predictors for self-reported error. For high utilizers of care, the probability that errors are reported rises up to P = 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: Safety remains a global challenge affecting many patients throughout the world. Large variability exists in the frequency of patient-reported error across countries. To learn from others' errors is not only essential within countries but may also prove a promising strategy internationally.

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS: In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS: Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS: While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

Patient information leaflets: informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients' emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of patient information leaflets (PILs) is to inform patients about the administration, precautions and potential side effects of their prescribed medication. Despite European Commission guidelines aiming at increasing readability and comprehension of PILs little is known about the potential risk information has on patients. This article explores patients' reactions and subsequent behavior towards risk information conveyed in PILs of commonly prescribed drugs by general practitioners (GPs) for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension or hypercholesterolemia; the most frequent cause for consultations in family practices in Germany. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups comprising 35 patients which were recruited in GP practices. Transcripts were read and coded for themes; categories were created by abstracting data and further refined into a coding framework. RESULTS: Three interrelated categories are presented: (i) The vast amount of side effects and drug interactions commonly described in PILs provoke various emotional reactions in patients which (ii) lead to specific patient behavior of which (iii) consulting the GP for assistance is among the most common. Findings show that current description of potential risk information caused feelings of fear and anxiety in the reader resulting in undesirable behavioral reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Future PILs need to convey potential risk information in a language that is less frightening while retaining the information content required to make informed decisions about the prescribed medication. Thus, during the production process greater emphasis needs to be placed on testing the degree of emotional arousal provoked in patients when reading risk information to allow them to undertake a benefit-risk-assessment of their medication that is based on rational rather than emotional (fearful) reactions.

Supporting Error Management and Safety Climate in Ambulatory Care Practices: The CIRSforte Study.

BACKGROUND: To improve patient safety, it is important that healthcare facilities learn from critical incidents. Tools such as reporting and learning systems and team meetings structure error management and promote learning from incidents. To enhance error management in ambulatory care practices, it is important to promote a climate of safety and ensure personnel share views on safety policies and procedures. In contrast to the hospital sector, little research has been dedicated to developing feasible approaches to supporting error management and safety climate in ambulatory care. In this study, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent intervention to address how error management and safety climate can be improved in ambulatory care practices. METHODS: In a prospective 1-group pretest-posttest implementation study, we sought to encourage teams in German ambulatory practices to use proven methods such as guidelines, workshops, e-learning, (online) meetings, and e-mail newsletters. A pretest-posttest questionnaire was used to evaluate level and strength of safety climate and psychological behavioral determinants for systematic error management. Using 3 short surveys, we also assessed the state of error management in the participating practices. In semistructured interviews, we asked participants for their views on our intervention measures. RESULTS: Overall, 184 ambulatory care practices nationwide agreed to participate. Level of safety climate and safety climate strength (rwg) improved significantly. Of psychological behavioral determinants, significant improvements could be seen in "action/coping planning" and "action control." Seventy-six percent of practices implemented a new reporting and learning system or modified their existing system. The exchange of information between practices also increased over time. Interviews showed that the introductory workshop and provided materials such as report forms or instructions for team meetings were regarded as helpful. CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement in safety climate level and strength, as well as participants' knowledge of how to analyze critical incidents, derive preventive measures and develop concrete plans suggest that it is important to train practice teams, to provide practical tips and tools, and to facilitate the exchange of information between practices. Future randomized and controlled intervention trials should confirm the effectiveness of our multicomponent intervention.Trial registration: Retrospectively registered on 18. November 2019 in German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00019053.

Facility-Based Indicators to Manage and Scale Up Cervical Cancer Prevention and Care Services for Women Living With HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: a Three-Round Online Delphi Consensus Method.

BACKGROUND: Of women with cervical cancer (CC) and HIV, 85% live in sub-Saharan Africa, where 21% of all CC cases are attributable to HIV infection. We aimed to generate internationally acceptable facility-based indicators to monitor and guide scale up of CC prevention and care services offered on-site or off-site by HIV clinics. METHODS: We reviewed the literature and extracted relevant indicators, grouping them into domains along the CC control continuum. From February 2021 to March 2022, we conducted a three-round, online Delphi process to reach consensus on indicators. We invited 106 experts to participate. Through an anonymous, iterative process, participants adapted the indicators to their context (round 1), then rated them for 5 criteria on a 5-point Likert-type scale (rounds 2 and 3) and then ranked their importance (round 3). RESULTS: We reviewed 39 policies from 21 African countries and 7 from international organizations; 72 experts from 15 sub-Saharan Africa countries or international organizations participated in our Delphi process. Response rates were 34% in round 1, 40% in round 2, and 44% in round 3. Experts reached consensus for 17 indicators in the following domains: primary prevention (human papillomavirus prevention, n = 2), secondary prevention (screening, triage, treatment of precancerous lesions, n = 11), tertiary prevention (CC diagnosis and care, n = 2), and long-term impact of the program and linkage to HIV service (n = 2). CONCLUSION: We recommend that HIV clinics that offer CC control services in sub-Saharan Africa implement the 17 indicators stepwise and adapt them to context to improve monitoring along the CC control cascade.

Safety climate and its association with office type and team involvement in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in safety climate perceptions between occupational groups and types of office organization in primary care. METHODS: Primary care physicians and nurses working in outpatient offices were surveyed about safety climate. Explorative factor analysis was performed to determine the factorial structure. Differences in mean climate scores between staff groups and types of office were tested. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine predictors for a 'favorable' safety climate. RESULTS: 630 individuals returned the survey (response rate, 50%). Differences between occupational groups were observed in the means of the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (physician 4.0 vs. nurse 3.8, P < 0.001). Medical centers scored higher compared with single-handed offices and joint practices on the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (4.3 vs. 3.8 vs. 3.9, P < 0.001) but less favorable on the 'rules and risks'-scale (3.5 vs. 3.9 vs. 3.7, P < 0.001). Characteristics on the individual and office level predicted favorable 'team-based error prevention'-scores. Physicians (OR = 0.4, P = 0.01) and less experienced staff (OR 0.52, P = 0.04) were less likely to provide favorable scores. Individuals working at medical centers were more likely to provide positive scores compared with single-handed offices (OR 3.33, P = 0.001). The largest positive effect was associated with at least monthly team meetings (OR 6.2, P < 0.001) and participation in quality circles (OR 4.49, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that frequent quality circle participation and team meetings involving all team members are effective ways to strengthen safety climate in terms of team-based strategies and activities in error prevention.