| Title |
Understanding nurses’ and physicians’ fear of repercussions for reporting errors: clinician characteristics, organization demographics, or leadership factors?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-015-0987-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Evan S. Castel, Liane R. Ginsburg, Shahram Zaheer, Hala Tamim |
| Abstract |
Identifying and understanding factors influencing fear of repercussions for reporting and discussing medical errors in nurses and physicians remains an important area of inquiry. Work is needed to disentangle the role of clinician characteristics from those of the organization-level and unit-level safety environments in which these clinicians work and learn, as well as probing the differing reporting behaviours of nurses and physicians. This study examines the influence of clinician demographics (age, gender, and tenure), organization demographics (teaching status, location of care, and province) and leadership factors (organization and unit leadership support for safety) on fear of repercussions, and does so for nurses and physicians separately. A cross-sectional analysis of 2319 nurse and 386 physician responders from three Canadian provinces to the Modified Stanford patient safety climate survey (MSI-06). Data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, multiple linear regression, and hierarchical linear regression. Age, gender, tenure, teaching status, and province were not significantly associated with fear of repercussions for nurses or physicians. Mental health nurses had poorer fear responses than their peers outside of these areas, as did community physicians. Strong organization and unit leadership support for safety explained the most variance in fear for both nurses and physicians. The absence of associations between several plausible factors including age, tenure and teaching status suggests that fear is a complex construct requiring more study. Substantially differing fear responses across locations of care indicate areas where interventions may be needed. In addition, since factors affecting fear of repercussions appear to be different for nurses and physicians, tailoring patient safety initiatives to each group may, in some instances, be fruitful. Although further investigation is needed to examine these and other factors in detail, supportive safety leadership appears to be central to reducing fear of reporting errors for both nurses and physicians. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 6 | 35% |
| Spain | 3 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 6% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 196 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 48 | 24% |
| Unknown | 48 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 5% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 12% |
| Unknown | 60 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2024.
All research outputs
#669,083
of 25,617,409 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#129
of 8,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,169
of 277,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,617,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.