Variations in Workplace Safety Climate Perceptions and Outcomes Across Healthcare Provider Positions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Injury rates reported among healthcare practitioners tend to vary depending on position. Nurses and healthcare aides report different rates of injury, which suggests that position and job duties may be key injury antecedents. The outcomes related to workplace safety climate perceptions (e.g., injury rates, job satisfaction, turnover) require reflection to identify antecedents of safety perception. The purpose of this study was to examine workplace safety perceptions and well-being (e.g., stress, job satisfaction) of healthcare practitioners by position. A cross-sectional survey of care teams (e.g., nurses, healthcare aides, allied health professionals) was conducted across three inpatient units. Data (N = 144) were analyzed using hierarchical linear regression and binomial logistic regression to examine the relationship between safety climate and self-reported injuries and ANOVA to determine variations in safety climate perceptions by position. Results indicated that nurses, healthcare aides, and allied health professionals report differing levels of workplace safety climate perceptions. Nurses reported the poorest safety perceptions, lowest job satisfaction, and highest stress, while allied health professionals reported the highest safety perceptions and job satisfaction and the lowest stress. Safety climate perceptions were found to be significantly related to care practitioner reported stress, turnover intent, and job satisfaction. Considering the importance of safety climate perceptions for the well-being of care practitioners, healthcare organizations need to prioritize workplace safety to optimize practitioners' perceptions. This study makes a unique contribution to the safety climate literature by identifying the variation in safety climate perceptions by care practitioner position. Practical implications are offered for enhancing workplace safety perceptions.

Magnetic work environments: Patient experience outcomes in Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The term Magnet hospital is an official designation ascribed by the American Nurses Credentialing Center for hospitals that meet specific criteria indicating they have a "magnetic work environment" for nurses. The objective of the Magnet designation is to encourage hospitals to design work in such a way as to attract and retain high-quality nurses and thus improve the quality of patient care. Empirical research has demonstrated that hospitals who earn a Magnet designation appear to have nurses who are more satisfied and committed to their work environments. Although research on whether patients are more satisfied with their care in these hospitals is still in its infancy, preliminary studies suggest that patients receiving care at Magnet-designated hospitals report more positive care experiences. PURPOSE: This study used a large secondary survey data set to explore the extent to which inpatient perceptions differed between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. METHODOLOGY: Ordinal logistic and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine whether Magnet hospital status and positive nurse communication are related to overall hospital rating and willingness of patients to recommend the hospital. RESULTS: Results indicated that patients treated at a Magnet hospital and patients who rated nurses' communication highly were significantly more satisfied and more likely to say they would recommend the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this study suggests that it would be worthwhile for hospital leaders to consider organizational policies and practices consistent with the criteria put forth for Magnet hospital designation.

Safety leadership: extending workplace safety climate best practices across health care workforces.

PURPOSE: Hospitals within the United States consistently have injury rates that are over twice the national employee injury rate. Hospital safety studies typically investigate care providers rather than support service employees. Compounding the lack of evidence for this understudied population is the scant evidence that is available to examine the relationship of support service employees'perceptions of safety and work-related injuries. To examine this phenomenon, the purpose of this study was to investigate support service employees' perceptions of safety leadership and social support as well as the relationship of safety perception to levels of reported injuries. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A nonexperimental survey was conducted with the data collected from hospital support service employees (n = 1,272) and examined. (1) relationships between safety leadership (supervisor and organization) and individual and unit safety perceptions; (2) the moderating effect of social support (supervisor and coworker) on individual and unit safety perceptions; and (3) the relationship of safety perception to reported injury rates. The survey items in this study were based on the items from the AHRQ Patient Safety Culture Survey and the U.S. National Health Care Surveys. FINDINGS: Safety leadership (supervisor and organization) was found to be positively related to individual safety perceptions and unit safety grade as was supervisor and coworker support. Coworker support was found to positively moderate the following relationships: supervisor safety leadership and safety perceptions, supervisor safety leadership and unit safety grade, and senior management safety leadership and safety perceptions. Positive employee safety perceptions were found to have a significant relationship with lower reported injury rates. VALUE/ORIGINALITY: These findings suggest that safety leadership from supervisors and senior management as well as coworker support has positive implications for support service employees' perceptions of safety, which, in turn, are negatively related to lower odds of reporting injuries.