Interprofessional collaboration mediates the relationship between perceived organizational learning and safety climate in hospitals: A cross-sectional study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2024
Interprofessional collaboration mediates the relationship between perceived organizational learning and safety climate in hospitals: A cross-sectional study
Organizational learning (OL) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) are said to enhance medical safety in hospitals, but the relationship between these variables has not been quantitatively tested.
OBJECTIVE:
This study examines the mediating effects of IPC on the relationship between OL and safety climate (improvement, compliance, and patient/family involvement).
METHODS:
An anonymous self-reporting questionnaire was administered to 1,495 healthcare workers from November 2021 to January 2022. The questions regarded the hospital’s safety climate, OL, and IPC. A mediation analysis using structural equation modeling was conducted to examine the mediating role of IPC on the relationship between OL and the three safety climates. The indirect effect was estimated using 2,000 bootstrap samples.
RESULTS:
Responses from 643 healthcare workers were analyzed. The direct effects of OL were 𝛽 = .74, 75 (p < .001) on improvement and involvement and 𝛽 = 0.1 (p > .05) on compliance. The indirect effects of IPC on improvement and involvement were 𝛽 = .14 (95%CI: .00 ∼ .06) and 𝛽 = .37 (95%CI: .04 ∼ .09), respectively.
CONCLUSION:
This study determined the mechanisms that enhance a hospital’s safety climate, demonstrating that IPC mediates the relationship between OL and improvement and patient/family involvement. However, OL and IPC are not related to compliance.
NewboldSKKupermanGJBakkenSBrennanPFMendoncaEAParkH-AInformation technology as an infrastructure for patient safety: Nursing research needs. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(7–8):657–62. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.04.016.
2.
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
3.
PattersonMGWestMAShackletonVJDawsonJFLawthomRMaitlisSValidating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. J Organ Behav. 2005;26(4):379–408. doi:10.1002/job.312.
4.
ZoharD . Safety climate: Conceptual and measurement issues. In: Quick JC, Tetrick LE, editors. Handbook of Cccupational Health Psychology. American Psychological Association; 2003. pp. 123–42. doi:10.1037/10474-006.
5.
LinYSLinYCLouMF. Concept analysis of safety climate in healthcare providers. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2017;26(11–12):1737–47. doi:10.1111/jocn.13641.
6.
AgnewCFlinRMearnsK. Patient safety climate and worker safety behaviours in acute hospitals in Scotland. J Safety Res. 2013;45:95–101. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2013.01.008.
7.
SingerSLinSFalwellAGabaDBakerL. Relationship of safety climate and safety performance in hospitals. Health Res Educ Trust. 2008;44(1):399–421. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00918.x.
8.
SmithDRMutoTSairenchiTIshikawaYSayamaSYoshidaAHospital safety climate, psychosocial risk factors and needlestick injuries in Japan. Ind Health. 2010;48(1):85–95. doi:10.2486/indhealth.48.85.
9.
Institute of Medicine. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
10.
AghaeiHAsadiZSAliabadiMMAhmadinaH. The relationships among occupational safety climate, patient safety climate, and safety performance based on structural equation modeling. J Prev Med Public Health. 2020;53(6):447–54. doi:10.3961/jpmph.20.350.
11.
KudoYKidoSShahzadMTSaegusaYSatohTAizawaY. Safety climate and motivation toward patient safety among Japanese nurses in hospitals of fewer than 250 beds. Ind Health. 2009;47(1):70–9. doi:10.2486/indhealth.47.70.
12.
McFaddenKLStockGNGowenCR. Leadership, safety climate, and continuous quality improvement: Impact on process quality and patient safety. Health Care Manag Rev. 2015;40(1):24–34. doi:10.1097/HMR.0000000000000006.
13.
KuenziMSchminkeM. Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. J Manag. 2009;35(3):634–717. doi:10.1177/0149206308330559.
14.
ShukriF. Safety, quality, and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Am Surg. 2006;72(11):994–98.
15.
BrasaiteIKaunonenMSuominenT. Healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and skills regarding patient safety: A systematic literature review. Scandinavian J Caring Sci. 2015;29(1):30–50. doi:10.1111/scs.12136.
AjmalMIshaASNNordinSAl-MekhlafiA-BA. Safety-management practices and the occurrence of occupational accidents: Assessing the mediating role of safety compliance. Sustainability. 2022;14(8):1–17. doi:10.3390/su14084569.
18.
Dixon-WoodsM. Why is patient safety so hard? A selective review of ethnographic studies. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15(S1):11–6. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009041.
19.
HealeyAVincentCA. Enhancing Safety in Surgery. London: The Clinical Safety Research Unit, Imperial College, University of London; 2006.
20.
BinghamMAshleyJDe JongMSwiftC. Implementing a unit-level intervention to reduce the probability of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Nurs Res. 2010;59(S1):40–7. doi:10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181c3bffc.
21.
GoodridgeDMcDonaldMNewLScharfMHarrisonERotterTBuilding patient capacity to participate in care during hospitalisation: A scoping review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):1–12. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026551.
22.
SammerCELykensKSinghKPMainsDALackanNA. What is patient safety culture? A review of the literature. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010;42(2):156–65. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01330.x.
23.
VonnesCWolfD. Fall risk and prevention agreement: Engaging patients and families with a partnership for patient safety. BMJ Open Qual. 2017;6(2):1–4. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000038.
24.
GandhiTKKaplanGSLeapeLBerwickDMEdgman-LevitanSEdmondsonATransforming concepts in patient safety: A progress report. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(12):1019–26. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007756.
25.
FlinRBurnsCMearnsKYuleSRoberstonEM. Measuring safety climate in health care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(2):109–15. doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.014761.
26.
CheungCMZhangRP. How organizational support can cultivate a multilevel safety climate in the construction industry. J Manag Eng. 2020;36(3):1–13. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000758.
27.
ZoharDLuriaG. A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(4):616–28. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.61.
28.
HuberGP. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Org Sci. 1991;2(1):88–115. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88.
29.
CrossanMMLaneHWWhiteRE. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev. 1999;24(3):522–37. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2202135.
30.
AbdallahWJohnsonCNitzlCMohammedMA. Organizational learning and patient safety: Hospital pharmacy settings. J Health Organ Manag. 2019;33(6):695–713. doi:10.1108/JHOM-11-2018-0319.
31.
LeeSEDahintenVS. The enabling, enacting, and elaborating factors of safety culture associated with patient safety: A multilevel analysis. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2020;52(5):544–52. doi:10.1111/jnu.12585.
32.
LymanBJacobsJDHammondELGunnMM. Organizational learning in hospitals: A realist review. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(11):2352–77. doi:10.1111/jan.14091.
33.
ConnorMPontePRConwayJ. Multidisciplinary approaches to reducing error and risk in a patient care setting. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2002;14(4):359–67. doi:10.1016/s0899-5885(02)00017-5.
34.
Lima da SilvaPTeles de Oliveira GouveiaMLima de Brito MagalhãesRVieira de Sousa BorgesBRochaRCGuimarãesTMM. Patient safety culture from the perspective of the nursing team in a public maternity hospital. Enfermería Global. 2020;19(4):427–62. doi:10.6018/eglobal.386951.
35.
EdwardsMT. An organizational learning framework for patient safety. Am J Med Qual. 2017;32(2):148–55. doi:10.1177/1062860616632295.
36.
GilbertJHYanJHoffmanSJ. A WHO report: Framework for action on inter- professional education and collaborative practice. J Allied Health. 2010;39(3):196–7.
37.
O’LearyKJSehgalNLTerrellGWilliamsMV. Interdisciplinary teamwork in hospitals: A review and practical recommendations for improvement. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(1):48–54. doi:10.1002/jhm.970.
38.
BrandisSRiceJSchleimerS. Dynamic workplace interactions for improving patient safety climate. J Health Organ Manag. 2017;31(1):38–53. doi:10.1108/JHOM-09-2016-0185.
39.
ManojlovichMKerrMDaviesBSquiresJMallickRRodgerGL. Achieving a climate for patient safety by focusing on relationships. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(6):579–84. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzu068.
40.
ManserT. Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: A review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2009;53(2):143–51. doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x.
41.
FarokhzadianJNayeriNDBorhaniF. The long way ahead to achieve an effective patient safety culture challenges perceived by nurses. BMC Health Services Research. 2018;18(654):1–13.
42.
GohSCChanCKuziemskyC. Teamwork, organizational learning, patient safety and job outcomes. Int J of Health Care Qual Assur. 2013;26(5):420–32. doi:10.1108/IJHCQA-05-2011-0032.
43.
StockerMPilgrimSBBurmesterMAllenMLGijselaersWH. Interprofessional team management in pediatric critical care: Some challenges and possible solutions. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:47–58. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S76773.
44.
BoomsmaA . The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In: Jöreskog KG, H. Wold, editors. Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction. 1982. pp. 149–285.
45.
BoomsmaA. Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika. 1985;50:229–42. doi:10.1007/BF02294248.
46.
SimMKimSYSuhY. Sample size requirements for simple and complex mediation models. Educ Psychol Meas. 2022;82(1):76–106. doi:10.1177/0013164421100326.
47.
MatsubaraSHagiharaANobutomoK. Development of a patient safety climate scale in Japan. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(3):211–20. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzn003.
48.
BallenCJSalehiS . Structural equation modeling (SEM) in biology education research: Beyond ‘what works’ to understand how it works, and for whom. In: GSA Annual Meeting. Indianapolis; 2018. doi:10.1130/abs/2018am-316162.
49.
IshiiKTakemuraYIchikawaN. Verification of reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Organizational Learning Scale. J Japan Acad Nurs Admin Policies. 2020;63(1):63–71. (in Japanese). doi:10.19012/janap.24.1_63.
50.
FloresLGZhengWRauDThomasCH. Organizational learning: Subprocess identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural antecedents. J Manag. 2012;38(2):640–67. doi:10.1177/0149206310384631.
51.
LandisRSBealDJTeslukPE. A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(2):186–207. doi:10.1177/109442810032003.
52.
MatsushitaHIchikawaKFujitaniKPrenticeDOrchardCIchikawaY.. Measuring the reality among healthcare professionals on the arrangement of interprofessional collaboration by the Japanese version of the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale II (AITCS-II-J) at an acute care hospital. Tokyo-Jyouhou-Daigaku-Kenkyuu-Ron-Shyuu. 2020;23(2):11–23. (in Japanese). doi:10.15029/00000621.
53.
OrchardCPedersonLLReadEMahlerCLaschingerH. Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS): Further testing and instrument revision. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2018;38(1):11–8. doi:10.1097/CEH.0000000000000193.
54.
GunzlerDMorrisNTuXM . Causal mediation analysis using structure equation models. In: He H, Wu P, Chen D-G, editors. Statistical Causal Inferences and their Applications in Public Health Research. Cham: Springer; 2016. pp. 295–314.
55.
CheungMWL. Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models. Struct Equ Model. 2007;14(2):227–46. doi:10.1080/10705510709336745.
56.
Jiménez-JiménezDSanz-ValleR. Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. J Bus Res. 2011;64(4):408–17. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010.
57.
NembhardIMCherianPBradleyEH. Deliberate learning in health care: The effect of importing best practices and creative problem solving on hospital performance improvement. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(5):450–71. doi:10.1177/1077558714536619.
58.
SchoonbeekSHendersonA. Learning to work in teams. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2014;45(6):249–51. doi:10.3928/00220124-20140527-13.
59.
ArgoteLMiron-SpektorE. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organ Sci. 2011;22(5):1123–37. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0621.
60.
AllanJEnglebrightJ. Patient-centered documentation: An effective and efficient use of clinical information systems. J Nurs Adm. 2000;30(2):90–95. doi:10.1097/00005110-200002000-00006.
61.
AllenSCroninSN. Improving staff compliance with isolation precautions through use of an educational intervention and behavioral contract. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2000;31(5):290–4. doi:10.1097/DCC.0b013e31826199e8.
62.
KnollMLautenschlaegerCBorneff-LippM. The impact of workload on hygiene compliance in nursing. Br J Nurs. 2010;19(S6):18–22. doi:10.12968/bjon.2010.19.Sup6.78213.
63.
HeidariSNayeriNDRavariASabzevariS. How organizational learning is associated with patient rights: A qualitative content analysis. Glob Health Action. 2016;9(10):1–9. doi:10.3402/gha.v9.30939.
64.
PannickSBeveridgeIMachterRMSevdalisN. Improving the quality and safety of care on the medical ward: A review and sysnthesis of the evidence base. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2014;25(10):874–87.
OldingMMcMillanSEReevesSSchmittMHPuntilloKKittoS. Patient and family involvement in adult critical and intensive care settings: A scoping review. Health Expect. 2016;19(6):1183–202. doi:10.1111/hex.12402.
67.
IshiiKTakemuraYIchikawaNKunieKKidaR. The relationship between nursing groups’ organizational socialization and nurses’ perception of organizational learning subprocesses: A cross-sectional study in hospital wards. Team Performance Management. 2021;27(5/6):466–85. doi:10.1108/TPM-01-2021-0002.
68.
JacksonJSaracCFlinR. Hospital safety climate surveys: Measurement issues. Current Opinion in Citical Care. 2010;16(6):632–8. doi:10.1108/TPM-01-2021-0002.
