[Safer Swedish healthcare requires coherent and persistent efforts]. / Säkrare svensk sjukvård kräver sammanhållet och uthålligt arbete.

Despite a development in Swedish patient safety work in recent years, unambiguous results are missing. Here we propose some activities that will result in improved patient safety. Patients and employees are a strong driving force, and should be given a more important role. The level of education in patient safety must be raised in all levels in the system. Effective systems for learning, sharing and follow-up need to be reinforced. The understanding on how the health-care system adapts to varying circumstances, resilience, needs development. The knowledge basis of what constitutes and creates safety in psychiatry, paediatric care, primary care, and in care of the elderly must be developed.

[When the behavior becomes a patient safety risk]. / När beteendet blir en patientsäkerhetsrisk.

A less discussed aspect of patient safety issues in Sweden has been the correlation between disruptive behaviour and adverse advents. Disruptive behaviour, according to international studies, can affect team collaboration and communication, and hence the safety of care. Disruptive behaviour also exists in Swedish health-care. Dealing with the problem requires acknowledgement of its existence, and international examples have shown how to identify and prevent disruptive behaviour among health care staff.

Psychometric properties of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, HSOPSC, applied on a large Swedish health care sample.

BACKGROUND: A Swedish version of the USA Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality "Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture" (S-HSOPSC) was developed to be used in both hospitals and primary care. Two new dimensions with two and four questions each were added as well as one outcome measure. This paper describes this Swedish version and an assessment of its psychometric properties which were tested on a large sample of responses from personnel in both hospital and primary care. METHODS: The questionnaire was mainly administered in web form and 84215 forms were returned (response rate 60%) between 2009 and 2011. Eleven per cent of the responses came from primary care workers and 46% from hospital care workers. The psychometric properties were analyzed using both the total sample and the hospital and primary care subsamples by assessment of construct validity and internal consistency. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory factor (EFA) analyses and internal consistency was established by Cronbachs's α. RESULTS: CFA of the total, hospital and primary care samples generally showed a good fit while the EFA pointed towards a 9-factor model in all samples instead of the 14-dimension S-HSOPSC instrument. Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach's α values above 0.7 in a major part of the dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The S-HSOPSC, consisting of 14 dimensions, 48 items and 3 single-item outcome measures, is used both in hospitals and in primary care settings in Sweden for different purposes. This version of the original American instrument has acceptable construct validity and internal consistency when tested on large datasets of first-time responders from both hospitals and primary care centres. One common instrument for measurements of patient safety culture in both hospitals and primary care settings is an advantage since it enables comparisons between sectors and assessments of national patient safety improvement programs. Future research into this version of the instrument includes comparing results from patient safety culture measurements with other outcomes in relation to safety improvement strategies.