Application of Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) in Adult Intensive Care Units: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

Patient safety, prevention of medical error, and quality of care are important aspects of health care. The importance of these fields has led to an expansion in literature and research in recent years. As in any other profession or industry such as engineering, aviation, or nuclear plants, human factors play an important role in the generation of medical incidents (Reason 2000). The available literature seems to suggest that high a percentage of medical incidents could be prevented in many cases (Brennan et al. 1991).

To achieve a positive safety culture, first, was must understand the values, perceptions, and patterns of behaviors to determine what is the norms and what is appropriate. After the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, more attention was given to safety culture in nuclear institutions. In 1993, the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (ACSNI) established a definition for safety culture as: “The safety culture of an organization is the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behavior that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organization’s health and safety management.

Organizations with a positive safety culture are characterized by communications founded on mutual trust, by shared perceptions of the importance of safety and by confidence in the efficacy of preventive measures.” (Health and Safety Commission (HSC) 1993).

Safety culture in a unit is a part of the whole organizational culture. Cooper described safety culture as a sub-facet of a bigger culture, the organizational culture (Cooper 2000). Moreover, cooper also suggests that safety culture affects organization members’ attitudes and behavior about the organization’s current health and safety performance (Cooper 2000). As well, the administration’s perception of safety influences the staff safety culture (Gadd and Collins 2002). Communication-based on mutual trust and committing and understanding the importance and benefits of following safety protocols are features of positive safety culture (Sorra and Nieva 2004).

Method

A cross-sectional study was conducted using anonymous and random sampling. I surveyed all ICU staff working in all the adult ICUs in two of the major hospitals in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. The short version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire was used to assess participants’ attitudes towards safety culture. Approval for the Questionnaire was gained from the University of Texas for the English version. Permission was obtained from Dr. Hamdan for the validated Arabic version of the Questionnaire.

It has 30 core items representing six scales: teamwork climate, safety climate, job satisfaction, stress recognition, perception of management, and working conditions. Additional items were added to explore the safety culture perception and the attitude toward incident reporting within the unit.

The following items were not part of the original Questionnaire: Item “How you score the intensive care unit in this hospital regarding patient safety”, item “describe the quality of communication and collaboration with the following personnel during your experience in this ICU”, and item “How many incidents (medical errors) did you report to the management in the last 12 months?”.

The questionnaire uses a Likert-type scale, ranging from 5 for strongly agree, 4 slightly agree, 3 neutral, 2 slightly disagree, to 1 for strongly disagree. The overall domain score was calculated by summing all items in each domain then divided by the number of items.

Results

A total of 82 completed questionnaires were returned which represented a response rate of 82%. Table 1 shows the demographics of the questionnaire participants. 49% of the participants used the Arabic version of the Questionnaire versus 51% using the English version. 57% of the participants were male, and 43% were female. Among participants, around 45% were respiratory therapists, 45% were nurses, 9% were physicians, and one participant was an ICU nutrition specialist. Most of the participants were bachelor’s degree holders (76%), then diploma (18%), and postgraduates (6%). 63% of participants have a minimum of 5 years of experience. Regarding working hours, the majority were working 40 to 59 hours per week (83%), and the part-time staff was 11.7%. Around 72% of the participants’ work schedule is variable and they cover night and day shifts, 22% work only day shifts, and 6% work night shifts.

The participant’s mean scores for each item of the six domains and the percentage of positive responses are presented in Table 2. On average, the domain that scored the highest number of positive responses was Job satisfaction with 68.5%, followed by teamwork climate 67.8%, then working conditions 60.1%, 57.1% safety climate, then preparation of management with 53.4%, and finally 46% in Stress recognition. Figure 1 demonstrates the average percentage of positive responses per SAQ domain.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Average of percentage positive responses per SAQ domains.

The Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the associations between participants’ positive response and each SAQ domain, the reliability analysis was done using Cronbach α method and showed that the Cronbach α values.

Overall, the SAQ had very good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.91). The domains internal consistency showed good results for Job satisfaction (Cronbach’s α = 0.86), Safety Climate (Cronbach’s α = 0.77), Working conditions (Cronbach’s α = 0.84), and Stress recognition (Cronbach’s α = 0.71). And acceptable internal consistency in Preparation of Management (Cronbach’s α = 0.70), and Teamwork climate (Cronbach’s α = 0.68) which fall within the acceptable range (De Vet et al. 2011).

Table 3 shows the mean SAQ score of participants according to their characteristics. A statistically significant difference was found between the mean SAQ score and the educational level of the participants. Participants with bachelor’s degrees scored a mean of 50.17 compared to participants hold diploma degrees who scored a mean of 68.81 (P=0.02). Moreover, a significant difference was found between the mean SAQ score and participants’ specialties. Attending/Staff Physician mean score was 36.40, Nurse Manager/Charge Nurse scored 39.78, and Respiratory therapist mean score was 47.88, compared to mean score of 62.27 for Registered Nurse, and Respiratory supervisor 67.0 (P=0.04).

Table 4 shows the mean SAQ score of both hospitals in each domain. Perception of management scored a mean of 28.65 in hospital 2 compared to 62.22 in hospital 1. Hospital 2 working condition scored a mean of 29.05, compared to 74.33 in hospital 1. Moreover, the safety climate mean score in hospital 2 was 37.22, and hospital 1 was 69.97. This could be explained by the significant difference in management and working conditions in both hospitals. Hospital 1 is a military hospital that is managed by the Ministry of Defense and serves only the Ministry of Defense workers and their families. Whereas Hospital 2 is under the Ministry of Health administration and serves the public residents of the region and is therefore expected to have a higher workload compared to hospital 1. In addition, even though the bed capacity of hospital 2 (425 beds) is more than hospital 1 (335 beds) the staffing in hospital 2 is insufficient and therefore working conditions and perception of management mean score was immensely negative.

One of the added items to the Questionnaire was the number of incidents reported by the participants in the last 12 months. Based on the responses, table 5 shows 79.2% of the respondents did not report any incidents in the last 12 months. 20.7% report one or two incidents in the last 12 months and no participant have reported more than two incidents (figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Number of incidents reported by participants in the last 12 months.

Discussion

Healthcare accreditation organizations such as Joint Commission International (JCI), United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) and the Saudi Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI), encourage hospitals to frequently assess safety culture within the institution. In Saudi Arabia, the safety culture research field is still relatively new and under-explored and has very limited published data in measuring safety culture and the use of SAQ (Alayed, Lööf, and Johansson 2014; Algahtani 2015; Alswat et al. 2017; Alzahrani, Jones, and Abdel-Latif 2018). The findings of this study show similarity to results from other studies (Abu-El-Noor et al. 2017; Gabrani et al. 2015; Hamdan 2013; Sexton et al. 2006; Vifladt et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2019).

In this study, results show a significant difference between nurses and other specialties. Nurses scored a higher positive attitude toward safety culture. The result is in line with the findings from the Abu-El-Noo study (Abu-El-Noor et al. 2017). This difference could be related to the fact that most of the nurses were younger and felt more informed toward safety culture, they may also be more resilient and able to cope with stressful working conditions in ICU (Raftopoulos and Pavlakis 2013a). However, other studies reported that physicians scored higher than nurses (Gabrani et al. 2015; Sexton et al. 2006; Thomas, Sexton, and Helmreich 2003). The difference in SAQ scores between healthcare specialties could be related to safety culture inside their department, responsibilities, availability of protocols, training, and gender (Thomas et al. 2003).

Another significant difference was found between staff holding diploma degree who scored higher compared to higher educated staff. This could be related to the fact that most of the diploma staff were working in their ICUs for a longer time than others and they were more familiar with the unit policies and team. Findings in this study indicate that staff working in night shifts scored lower overall SAQ than the day shift. Various studies found that safety and productivity are compromised during night shifts (Folkard and Tucker 2003; Gomez-Garcia et al. 2016; Wagstaff and Lie 2011).

In this study, job satisfaction was scored the highest positive domain among all domains despite the fact that the stress recognition domain scored the lowest 46% and more than 55% of participants believe the ICU staffing is insufficient. However, these results were consistent with findings from other studies (Hamdan 2013; Raftopoulos and Pavlakis 2013b). This could be explained by firstly, the high working morale since 75.7% of participants answered positively to the item “I like my Job” which was the highest scored item in SAQ. Secondly, by the positive teamwork domain, which scored 67.8% positive response (2^nd highest domain) which could be a result of ICU staff familiarity with each other. Moreover, it was noticed that some of the young staff were trained during their internship in these units; therefore, they feel loyal to the team.

The stress recognition domain scored the lowest in both hospitals. This finding is consistent with other studies (Raftopoulos and Pavlakis 2013b). This could be a result of working in a stressful, fast-paced environment, and staff been burned out. In addition, Item “Problem personnel are dealt with constructively by our department” in the working condition received only 47.6% positive response. Several studies showed a correlation between high workload, stressful working conditions, and the number of incidents rate (Abu-El-Noor et al. 2017; Ahola et al. 2009; Fahrenkopf et al. 2008; Guirardello 2017).

The results of overall SAQ show a significant deferent between both ICUs. However, the variation in overall SAQ score between hospitals is common and expected as a result of different management, financial status, staff level, and type of patients (Hamdan 2013; Raftopoulos and Pavlakis 2013b).

Hospital 1 had recently initiated a safety educational program among the hospital staff, which could explain the relatively positive attitude of their staff toward safety culture. However, both hospitals showed a lack of proper reporting system and staff unwilling to report incidents (Table 5). This could be a result of many reasons such as lack of staff awareness about the importance of reporting incidents, or fear of punishment and liability. In the survey 35.4% of participants had felt that: “In this clinical area, it is difficult to discuss errors” and 23.2% of participants felt that: “In this clinical area, it is difficult to speak up if I perceive a problem with patient care”, moreover only 51.2% of participants believes that “Medical errors are handled appropriately in this clinical area”. which indicates that the existing culture in the ICUs is not supportive and reliable toward reporting incidents and patient safety culture. Only 52.5% of staff said they felt safe to be treated in their hospitals, which is a strong indicator of poor patient safety.

Several studies showed that safety culture has a strong association with patient safety and incidents rate (Lee et al. 2010, 2019; Nieva and Sorra 2003; Pettker et al. 2011; Sexton et al. 2006; Tear et al. 2020). Moreover, more studies suggest that inability or difficulty for staff to report or to discuss incidents is one of the main reasons for poor patient safety culture (Buljac-Samardzic, Van Wijngaarden, and Dekker-Van Doorn 2016; Sexton et al. 2006). Therefore, further investigation is needed from both hospital administration to highlight the staff concerns and work in improving the safety culture.

Conclusion

The result of the study shows an unsatisfying level of safety culture among healthcare staff in these 2 ICUs. The importance of this study is to establish a baseline for safety climate in these hospitals and specifically ICUs. In addition, by exposing the system weaknesses it helps the administration to strengthen and improve patient care. By Decreasing workload and job stress, studies show they have a positive association with increasing job performance (Raziq and Maulabakhsh 2015). The use of questionnaires should be done periodically to assess safety culture over a period of time and observe the direction of the results.

Limitations

Using a questionnaire to evaluate safety culture or to be specific safety climate, plays an important role in drawing the road map of the institution safety culture assessment. However, SAQ is not enough, other tools should be used to inspect other aspects of safety culture. SAQ measures staff beliefs about safety culture rather than their actual safety behavior (Gadd and Collins 2002). Furthermore, the sample size was limited; therefore, the findings should be dealt with caution in regard to transferability. In addition, the participation of specialties such as physicians, clinical pharmacists, and others was poor and needed to be further investigated.