Nurse Manager's Guide to Life Safety Code for Dialysis Facilities.

The importance of the Life Safety Code (LSC) cannot be understated. The LSC is composed of a set of components, measures, and protocols with the overarching goal of protecting and preserving human life. This article describes the LSC survey process in dialysis facilities. Ensuring the physical plant and its infrastructure is critical for patient safety. The survey tasks, provider, and building management responsibilities are reviewed. Implications for nephrology nursing regarding survey readiness and best practices for an LSC survey are discussed.

Antineoplastic Therapy Administration Safety Standards for Adult and Pediatric Oncology: ASCO-ONS Standards.

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) standards for antineoplastic therapy administration safety in adult and pediatric oncology and highlight current standards for antineoplastic therapy for adult and pediatric populations with various routes of administration and location. METHODS: ASCO and ONS convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel with representation of multiple organizations to conduct literature reviews and add to the standards as needed. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO-ONS Expert Panel to develop antineoplastic safety standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include home administration and other changes in processes of ordering, preparing, and administering antineoplastic therapy; the advent of immune effector cellular therapy; the importance of social determinants of health; fertility preservation; and pregnancy avoidance. In addition, the standards have added a fourth verification. STANDARDS: Standards are provided for which health care organizations and those involved in all aspects of patient care can safely deliver antineoplastic therapy, increase the quality of care, and reduce medical errors.

Developing a quality and safety assessment framework for Iran's military hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The first crucial step towards military hospitals performance improvement is to develop a local and scientific tool to assess quality and safety based on the context and aims of military hospitals. This study introduces a Quality and Safety Assessment Framework (Q&SAF) for Iran's military hospitals. METHODS: This is a literature review which continued with a qualitative study. The Q&SAF for Iran's military hospitals was developed initially, through a review of the WHO's framework for hospital performance, literature review (other related framework), review of military hospital-related local documents, consultations with a national and sub-national expert. Finally, the Delphi technique used to finalize the framework. RESULTS: Based on the literature review results; 13 hospital Q&SAF were identified. After reviewing literature review results and expert opinions; Iran's military hospitals Q&SAF was developed with 58 indictors in five dimensions including clinical effectiveness, safety, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and Responsive Management (Command and Control). The efficiency dimension had the highest number of indictors (19 indictors), whereas the patient-centered dimension had the lowest number of indices (4 indictors). CONCLUSION: Regarding the comprehensiveness of the developed assessment framework due to its focus on the majority of quality dimensions and important components of the hospital's performance, it can be used as a useful tool for assessing and continuously improving the quality of hospitals, particularly military hospitals.

Patient Safety Domains in Primary Healthcare: A Systematic Review.

Background: Healthcare systems should ensure the provision of quality services to patients without harming them. However, the provision of services is occasionally accompanied by harm or complications, most of which are preventable. Most studies have focused on secondary healthcare rather than primary healthcare (PHC). Thus, this study aimed to identify various dimensions and components of patient safety in PHC worldwide. Methods: This systematic review study was conducted in November 2022 based on PRISMA reporting guidelines. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE and searched for English documents using the keywords "patient safety" and "PHC" from 2000 to 2022. Finally, two reviewers extracted the data independently and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: Overall, 23 out of the initially 4937 identified articles were selected for the final analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most of these studies used a qualitative-quantitative approach (61.9%, seven studies for both), and 64% had been conducted in European countries. Eventually, five dimensions and 22 components were identified for patient safety in PHC, including management measures, quality management, resources and technology, documents, and patient-related factors. Conclusion: The patient safety dimensions and components identified in this research can help develop a clear definition of patient safety and its assessment standards and criteria in PHC. Considering that most previous studies on patient safety in PHC were conducted in European and developed countries, it is suggested that researchers conduct more studies in developing countries to fill this research gap.

How intervention studies measure the effectiveness of medication safety-related clinical decision support systems in primary and long-term care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors and associated adverse drug events (ADE) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In recent years, the prevention of medication errors has become a high priority in healthcare systems. In order to improve medication safety, computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are increasingly being integrated into the medication process. Accordingly, a growing number of studies have investigated the medication safety-related effectiveness of CDSS. However, the outcome measures used are heterogeneous, leading to unclear evidence. The primary aim of this study is to summarize and categorize the outcomes used in interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS on medication safety in primary and long-term care. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS targeting medication safety and patient-related outcomes. We extracted methodological characteristics, outcomes and empirical findings from the included studies. Outcomes were assigned to three main categories: process-related, harm-related, and cost-related. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (n = 31) used process-related outcomes, followed by harm-related outcomes (n = 11). Only three studies used cost-related outcomes. Most studies used outcomes from only one category and no study used outcomes from all three categories. The definition and operationalization of outcomes varied widely between the included studies, even within outcome categories. Overall, evidence on CDSS effectiveness was mixed. A significant intervention effect was demonstrated by nine of fifteen studies with process-related primary outcomes (60%) but only one out of five studies with harm-related primary outcomes (20%). The included studies faced a number of methodological problems that limit the comparability and generalizability of their results. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness of CDSS is currently inconclusive due in part to inconsistent outcome definitions and methodological problems in the literature. Additional high-quality studies are therefore needed to provide a comprehensive account of CDSS effectiveness. These studies should follow established methodological guidelines and recommendations and use a comprehensive set of harm-, process- and cost-related outcomes with agreed-upon and consistent definitions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023464746.

Guidelines in Practice: Team Communication.

The perioperative setting is a complex environment requiring interdisciplinary team collaboration to avoid adverse events. To protect the safety of patients and perioperative team members, communication among personnel should be clear and effective. The recently updated AORN "Guideline for team communication" provides perioperative nurses with recommendations on the topic. To promote effective communication in perioperative areas, all personnel should value and commit to a culture of safety. This article discusses recommendations for supporting a culture of safety, developing and implementing an effective hand-off process and surgical safety checklist, and developing education strategies for team communication. It also includes a scenario describing the implementation of a standardized, electronic surgical safety checklist in the OR. Perioperative nurses should review the guideline in its entirety and apply the recommendations for team communication in their working environments.

Is It Still Time for Safety Walkaround? Pilot Project Proposing a New Model and a Review of the Methodology.

Background and Objectives: Healthcare facilities are complex systems due to the interaction between different factors (human, environmental, management, and technological). As complexity increases, it is known that the possibility of error increases; therefore, it becomes essential to be able to analyze the processes that occur within these contexts to prevent their occurrence, which is the task of risk management. For this purpose, in this feasibility study, we chose to evaluate the application of a new safety walkaround (SWA) model. Materials and Methods: A multidisciplinary working group made up of experts was established and then the subsequent phases of the activity were divided into three stages, namely the initial meeting, the operational phase, and the final meeting, to investigate knowledge regarding patient safety before and subsequently through visits to the department: the correct compilation of the medical record, adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM) practices, the overall health and the degree of burnout of the various healthcare professionals, as well as the perception of empathy of staff by patients. Results: This working group chose to start this pilot project in the vascular surgery ward, demonstrating the ability of the tool used to capture the different aspects it set out to collect. In detail, the new version of SWA proposed in this work has made it possible to identify risk situations and system vulnerabilities that have allowed the introduction of corrective tools; detect adherence to existing company procedures, reschedule training on these specific topics after reviewing, and possibly update the same procedures; record the patient experience about the doctor-patient relationship and communication to hypothesize thematic courses on the subject; evaluate workers' perception of their health conditions about work, and above all reassure operators that their well-being is in the interest of the management of the healthcare company, which is maintained. Conclusions: Therefore, the outcome of the present study demonstrates the versatility and ever-present usefulness of the SWA tool.

Adverse events at the end of life of hospital patients with or without a condition relevant for palliative care: a nationwide retrospective record review study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is crucial for quality of care. Preventable adverse events (AEs) occur in 1 of 20 patients in the hospital, but it is unknown whether this is different for patients with a condition relevant for palliative care. The majority of the limited available research on this topic is only focused on patients already receiving palliative care, and do not make comparisons with other patients at the end-of-life. We identified and compared the prevalence, preventability, nature and causes of AEs in patients with and without a condition relevant for palliative care. METHODS: A nationwide retrospective record review study was performed in 20 Dutch hospitals. A total of 2,998 records of patients who died in hospital in 2019 was included. Records were reviewed for AEs. We identified two subgroups: patients with (n = 2,370) or without (n = 248) a condition relevant for palliative care through the selection method of Etkind (2017). Descriptive analyses were performed to calculate prevalence, nature, causes and prevention strategies. T-tests were performed to calculate differences between subgroups. RESULTS: We found no significant differences between subgroups regarding AE prevalence, this was 15.3% in patients with a condition relevant for palliative care, versus 12.0% in patients without a condition relevant for palliative care (p = 0.148). Potentially preventable AE prevalence was 4.3% versus 4.4% (p = 0.975). Potentially preventable death prevalence in both groups was 3.2% (p = 0.938). There were differences in the nature of AEs: in patients with a condition relevant for palliative care this was mostly related to medication (33.1%), and in patients without a condition relevant for palliative care to surgery (50.8%). In both subgroups in the majority of AEs a patient related cause was identified. For the potentially preventable AEs in both subgroups the two most important prevention strategies as suggested by the medical reviewers were reflection and evaluation and quality assurance. DISCUSSION: Patient safety risks appeared to be equally prevalent in both subgroups. The nature of AEs does differ between subgroups: medication- versus surgery-related, indicating that tailored safety measures are needed. Recommendations for practice are to focus on reflecting on AEs, complemented with case evaluations.

Educational video for teaching safe practices in the perioperative period: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the effectiveness of an educational video on hospitalized patients' knowledge of safe practices in the perioperative period. METHOD: randomized, double-blind controlled trial carried out in a teaching hospital in the countryside of Minas Gerais. 100 participants undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery were randomly allocated (50 participants in the experimental group and 50 participants in the control group). Patient knowledge was assessed using a questionnaire constructed by the researchers and validated by specialists, before and after the intervention (educational video) or standard guidelines were applied. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables and Student's t-test for independent samples to analyze the mean difference in knowledge between the experimental and control groups (α = 0.05). RESULTS: 100 participants took part in the study, 50 participants in the experimental group and 50 participants in the control group. The experimental group showed a significantly higher gain in knowledge (t =3.72 ±1.84; p<0.001) than the control group. Cohen's d was 1.22, indicating a large magnitude of the effect. CONCLUSION: the educational video was effective in improving patients' knowledge and can contribute to nurses in the practice of health education, optimizing time and disseminating knowledge about safe practices in the perioperative period. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC): RBR-8x5mfq. (1) Development of a valid patient knowledge assessment questionnaire. (2) Production of a valid educational video on perioperative safety. (3) The final version of the educational video is 7 minutes and 50 seconds long. (4) The educational video was effective in improving patient knowledge. (5) It contributes to patient involvement in safe care.

Safety and quality of parenteral nutrition: Areas for improvement and future perspectives.

PURPOSE: This article is based on presentations and discussions held at the International Safety and Quality of Parenteral Nutrition (PN) Summit (held November 8-10, 2021, at Charleston, SC, and Bad Homburg, Germany) and aims to raise awareness concerning unresolved issues associated with the PN process and potential future directions, including a greater emphasis on patients' perspectives and the role of patient support. SUMMARY: Ensuring that every patient in need receives adequate PN support remains challenging. It is important to have a standardized approach to identify nutritional risk and requirements using validated nutritional screening and assessment tools. Gaps between optimal and actual clinical practices need to be identified and closed, and responsibilities in the nutrition support team clarified. Use of modern technology opens up opportunities to decrease workloads or liberate resources, allowing a more personalized care approach. Patient-centered care has gained in importance and is an emerging topic within clinical nutrition, in part because patients often have different priorities and concerns than healthcare professionals. Regular assessment of health-related quality of life, functional outcomes, and/or overall patient well-being should all be performed for PN patients. This will generate patient-centric data, which should be integrated into care plans. Finally, communication and patient education are prerequisites for patients' commitment to health and for fostering adherence to PN regimes. CONCLUSION: Moving closer to optimal nutritional care requires input from healthcare professionals and patients. Patient-centered care and greater emphasis on patient perspectives and priorities within clinical nutrition are essential to help further improve clinical nutrition.

The way towards ethical anesthesia care: no aim - no game - no fame or blame?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores the intricacies of ethical anesthesia, exploring the necessity for precision anesthesia and its impact on patient-reported outcomes. The primary objective is to advocate for a defined aim, promoting the implementation of rules and feedback systems. The ultimate goal is to enhance precision anesthesia care, ensuring patient safety through the implementation of a teamwork and the integration of feedback mechanisms. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent strategies in the field of anesthesia have evolved from intraoperative monitorization to a wider perioperative patient-centered precision care. Nonetheless, implementing this approach encounters significant obstacles. The article explores the evidence supporting the need for a defined aim and applicable rules for precision anesthesia's effectiveness. The implementation of the safety culture is underlined. The review delves into the teamwork description with structured feedback systems. SUMMARY: Anesthesia is a multifaceted discipline that involves various stakeholders. The primary focus is delivering personalized precision care. This review underscores the importance of establishing clear aims, defined rules, and fostering effective and well tolerated teamwork with accurate feedback for improving patient-reported outcomes. The Safe Brain Initiative approach, emphasizing algorithmic monitoring and systematic follow-up, is crucial in implementing a fundamental and standardized reporting approach within patient-centered anesthesia care practice.

Accuracy assessment of patient safety incident (PSI) codes and present-on-admission (POA) indicators: a cross-sectional analysis using the Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry (PSII) in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Among the various methods used, administrative data collected for claims and billing purposes, such as diagnosis codes and present-on-admission (POA) indicators, can easily be employed to assess patient safety status. However, it is crucial that administrative data be accurate to generate valid estimates of adverse event (AE) occurrence. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of diagnosis codes and POA indicators in patients with confirmed AEs in the hospital admission setting. METHODS: We analysed the diagnosis codes of 1,032 confirmed AE cases and 6,754 non-AE cases from the 2019 Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry, which was designed as a cross-sectional study, to determine their alignment with the Korean Patient Safety Incidents (PSIs) Code Classification System. The unit of analysis was the individual case rather than the patient, because two or more AEs may occur in one patient. We examined whether the primary and secondary diagnostic codes had PSIs codes matching the AE type and checked each PSI code for whether the POA indicator had an 'N' tag. We reviewed the presence of PSI codes in patients without identified AEs and calculated the correlation between the AE incidence rate and PSI code and POA indicator accuracy across 15 hospitals. RESULTS: Ninety (8.7%) of the AE cases had PSI codes with an 'N' tag on the POA indicator compared to 294 (4.4%) of the non-AE cases. Infection- (20.4%) and surgery/procedure-related AEs (13.6%) had relatively higher instances of correctly tagged PSI codes. We did not identify any PSI codes for diagnosis-related incidents. While we noted significant differences in AE incidence rates, PSI code accuracy, and POA indicator accuracy among the hospitals, the correlations between these variables were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Currently, PSI codes and POA indicators in South Korea appear to have low validity. To use administrative data in medical quality improvement activities such as monitoring patient safety levels, improving the accuracy of administrative data should be a priority. Possible strategies include targeted education on PSI codes and POA indicators and introduction of new evaluation indicators regarding the accuracy of administrative data.

Impact of an educational intervention on patient safety culture among gynecology-obstetrics' healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, patient safety has begun to receive particular attention and has become a priority all over the world. Patient Safety Culture (PSC) is widely recognized as a key tenet that must be improved in order to enhance patient safety and prevent adverse events. However, in gynecology and obstetrics, despite the criticality of the environment, few studies have focused on improving PSC in these units. This study aimed at assessing the effectiveness of an educational program to improve PSC among health professionals working in the obstetric unit of a Tunisian university hospital. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study in the obstetric unit of a university hospital in Sousse (Tunisia). All the obstetric unit's professionals were invited to take part in the study (n = 95). The intervention consisted of an educational intervention with workshops and self-learning documents on patient safety and quality of care. The study instrument was the French validated version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Normality of the data was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The comparison of dimensions' scores before and after the intervention was carried out by the chi2 test. The significance level was set at 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 73 participants gave survey feedback in pre-test and 68 in post-test (response rates of 76.8% and 71.6, respectively). Eight dimensions improved significantly between pre- and post-tests. These dimensions were D2 "Frequency of adverse events reported" (from 30.1 to 65.6%, p < 0.001), D3 "Supervisor/Manager expectations and actions promoting patient safety" (from 38.0 to 76.8%, p < 0.001), D4 "Continuous improvement and organizational learning" (from 37.5 to 41.0%, p < 0.01), D5 "Teamwork within units" (from 58.2 to 79.7%, p < 0.01), D6 "Communication openness" (from 40.6 to 70.6%, p < 0.001), and D7 "Non-punitive response to error" (from 21.1 to 42.7%, p < 0.01), D9 "Management support for patient safety" (from 26.4 to 72.8%, p < 0.001), and D10 "Teamwork across units" (from 31.4 to 76.2%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Educational intervention, including workshops and self-learning as pedagogical tools can improve PSC. The sustainability of the improvements made depends on the collaboration of all personnel to create and promote a culture of safety. Staff commitment at all levels remains the cornerstone of any continuous improvement in the area of patient safety.

Expert consensus statements and summary of proceedings from the International Safety and Quality of Parenteral Nutrition Summit.

PURPOSE: The International Safety and Quality of Parenteral Nutrition (PN) Summit consisted of presentations, discussions, and formulation of consensus statements. The purpose here is to briefly summarize the summit and to present the consensus statements. SUMMARY: There was a high degree of consensus, with all statements approved by all authors/summit experts. These consensus statements should be regarded not as formal guidelines but rather as best-practice guidance intended to complement national and international nutrition society evidence-based guidelines and position statements. This article also summarizes key discussion topics from the summit, encompassing up-to-date knowledge and practical guidance concerning PN safety and quality in various countries and clinical settings, focusing on adult patients. Clear geographical differences exist between practices in Europe and the United States, and different approaches to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of PN vary, particularly with regard to the delivery systems used. Discussion between experts allowed for an exchange of practical experience in optimizing PN use processes, opportunities for standardization, use of electronic systems, potential improvements in PN formulations, better management during PN component shortages, and practical guidance to address patients' needs, particularly during long-term/home PN. CONCLUSION: The consensus statements are the collective opinion of the panel members and form best-practice guidance. The authors intend that this guidance may help to improve the safety and quality of PN in a variety of settings by bridging the gap between published guideline recommendations and common practical issues.

Improving quality and patient safety in surgical care through standardisation and harmonisation of perioperative care (SAFEST project): A research protocol for a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events in health care affect 8% to 12% of patients admitted to hospitals in the European Union (EU), with surgical adverse events being the most common types reported. AIM: SAFEST project aims to enhance perioperative care quality and patient safety by establishing and implementing widely supported evidence-based perioperative patient safety practices to reduce surgical adverse events. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed-methods hybrid type III implementation study supporting the development and adoption of evidence-based practices through a Quality Improvement Learning Collaborative (QILC) in co-creation with stakeholders. The project will be conducted in 10 hospitals and related healthcare facilities of 5 European countries. We will assess the level of adherence to the standardised practices, as well as surgical complications incidence, patient-reported outcomes, contextual factors influencing the implementation of the patient safety practices, and sustainability. The project will consist of six components: 1) Development of patient safety standardised practices in perioperative care; 2) Guided self-evaluation of the standardised practices; 3) Identification of priorities and actions plans; 4) Implementation of a QILC strategy; 5) Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness; 6) Patient empowerment for patient safety. Sustainability of the project will be ensured by systematic assessment of sustainability factors and business plans. Towards the end of the project, a call for participation will be launched to allow other hospitals to conduct the self-evaluation of the standardized practices. DISCUSSION: The SAFEST project will promote patient safety standardized practices in the continuum of care for adult patients undergoing surgery. This project will result in a broad implementation of evidence-based practices for perioperative care, spanning from the care provided before hospital admission to post-operative recovery at home or outpatient facilities. Different implementation challenges will be faced in the application of the evidence-based practices, which will be mitigated by developing context-specific implementation strategies. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and will be available in an online platform.

Development of a survey to support assessment of safety learning systems.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety learning systems play a critical role in supporting safety culture in healthcare organisations. A lack of explicit standards leads to inconsistent implementation across organisations, causing uncertainty about their roles and impact. Organisations can address inconsistent implementation by using a self-assessment tool based on agreed-on best practices. Therefore, we aimed to create a survey instrument to assess an organisation's approach to learning from safety events. METHODS: The foundation for this work was a recent systematic review that defined features associated with the performance of a safety learning system. We organised features into themes and rephrased them into questions (items). Face validity was checked, which included independent pre-testing to ensure comprehensibility and parsimony. It also included clinical sensibility testing in which a representative sample of leaders in quality at a large teaching hospital (The Ottawa Hospital) answered two questions to judge each item for clarity and necessity. If more than 20% of respondents judged a question unclear or unnecessary, we modified or removed that question accordingly. Finally, we checked the internal consistency of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: We initially developed a 47-item questionnaire based on a prior systematic review. Pre-testing resulted in the modification of 15 of the questions, 2 were removed and 2 questions were added to ensure comprehensiveness and relevance. Face validity was assessed through yes/no responses, with over 80% of respondents confirming the clarity and 85% the necessity of each question, leading to the retention of all 47 questions. Data collected from the five-point responses (strongly disagree to strongly agree) for each question were used to assess the questionnaire's internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.94, indicating a high internal consistency. CONCLUSION: This self-assessment questionnaire is evidence-based and on preliminary testing is deemed valid, comprehensible and reliable. Future work should assess the range of survey responses in a large sample of respondents from different hospitals.

Frontline nursing staff's perceptions of intravenous medication administration: the first step toward safer infusion processes-a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Intravenous medication errors continue to significantly impact patient safety and outcomes. This study sought to clarify the complexity and risks of the intravenous administration process. DESIGN: A qualitative focus group interview study. SETTING: Focused interviews were conducted using process mapping with frontline nurses responsible for medication administration in September 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Front line experiened nurses from a Japanese tertiary teaching hospital. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was to identify the mental models frontline nurses used during intravenous medication administration, which influence their interactions with patients, and secondarily, to examine the medication process gaps between the mental models nurses perceive and the actual defined medication administration process. RESULTS: We found gaps between the perceived clinical administration process and the real process challenges with an emphasis on the importance of verifying to see if the drug was ordered for the patient immediately before its administration. CONCLUSIONS: This novel and applied improvement approach can help nurses and managers better understand the process vulnerability of the infusion process and develop a deeper understanding of the administration steps useful for reliably improving the safety of intravenous medications.

Exploring the safety reporting culture among healthcare practitioners in Saudi hospitals: a comprehensive 2022 national study.

BACKGROUND: With the rise in medical errors, establishing a strong safety culture and an effective incident reporting system is crucial. As part of the Saudi National Health Transformation Vision of 2030, multiple projects have been initiated to periodically assess healthcare quality measures and ensure a commitment to continuous improvement. Among these is the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture National Project (HSPSC), conducted regularly by the Saudi Patient Safety Center (SPSC). However, comprehensive tools for assessing reporting culture are lacking. Addressing this gap can enhance reporting, efficiency, and health safety. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to investigate the reporting practices among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Saudi Arabian hospitals and examine the relationship between reporting culture domains and other variables such as hospital bed capabilities and HCPs' work positions. METHODS: The study focuses on measuring the reporting culture-related items measures and employs secondary data analysis using information from the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture conducted by the Saudi Center for Patient Safety in 2022, encompassing hospitals throughout Saudi Arabia. Data incorporated seven items in total: four items related to the Response to Error Domain, two related to the Reporting Patient Safety Events Domain, and one associated with the number of events reported in the past 12 months. RESULTS: The sample for the analyzed data included 145,657 HCPs from 392 hospitals. The results showed that the average positive response rates for reporting culture-related items were between 50% and 70%. In addition, the research indicated that favorable response rates were relatively higher among managerial and quality/patient safety/risk management staff. In contrast, almost half had not reported any events in the preceding year, and a quarter reported only 1 or 2 events. Pearson correlation analysis demonstrates a strong negative correlation between bed capacity and reporting safety events, response to error, and number of events reported (r = -0.935, -0.920, and - 0.911, respectively; p < 0.05), while a strong positive correlation is observed between reporting safety events and response to error (r = 0.980; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Almost 75% of the HCPs reported fewer safety events over the last 12 months, indicating an unexpectedly minimal recorded occurrence variance ranging from 0 to 2 incidents.