Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background The WHO recognises patient safety as a serious public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic affected adult EDs (AEDs) and paediatric EDs (PEDs) differently. We compared the culture of safety in the adult AED and PED before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods A quasi-experimental study was performed. In 2019, we conducted a survey using the Spanish-adapted Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture open to all staff (doctors, nurses and paediatric residents) in AED and PED. This survey provides scores for 12 separate domains and a global assessment of safety (scale 0–10). The survey was repeated in 2021 after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the second survey, the researchers constructed a Pareto Chart (based on the responses from the surveys), demonstrating the most important problems to develop improvement proposals.
Results The 2019 questionnaire was completed by 125 AED workers and 65 PED workers. The 2021 questionnaire was completed by 79 AED workers and 50 PED workers. The global assessment of safety in the AED was 6.13 points at baseline and increased to 7.58 points (p<0.001) after COVID-19. The global assessment for the PED was 6.8 points at baseline and increased to 7.62 points after COVID-19 (p<0.001). In both services, the dimension that was most favourably assessed was ‘Teamwork in the Service’ while ‘Provision of Staff’ was least favourably assessed. The Pareto charts showed four dimensions contributing more than 50% of negative responses: ‘Provision of staff’ and ‘Hospital Management support for patient safety’ coincided in both services.
Conclusion The baseline perception of the culture of safety was higher in the PED but improved in both services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adverse situations can provide an opportunity to improve patient safety culture.
- COVID-19
- emergency department
- safety
- pediatrics
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Handling editor Kirsty Challen
X @ManuelDreamer
Contributors Conceptualisation: MDBF and JAM; methodology: MDBF, JAM and CPM; formal analysis: MPR and MDBF; investigation: MDBF, APM and APNE; data curation: MDBF, MPR and JAM; writing—original draft: MDBF, APM and APNE; writing—review and editing: MDBF, MPR and JAM. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. MDBF acted as guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.