Due to the nature of their activity, anesthesia and critical care have generally well-developed patient safety cultures, which are linked to a greater level of incident awareness and reporting during clinical activity. In order to determine the status quo and identify and adopt, where appropriate, techniques and instruments for further improving patient safety, it is necessary to evaluate the culture and barriers in these departments. The main objective of our study was to assess patient safety culture in Romanian anesthesia and intensive care departments (AICDs), to pinpoint the areas that may need improvement, and to examine the correlation between the prevalence of adverse event reporting, as well as the level of self-reported patient safety culture. To determine how anesthesia and intensive care department staff perceived patient safety, the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) was used in a translated Romanian version. In total, 1200 employees from 36 anesthesiology and intensive care departments across 32 hospitals in Romania received the questionnaire, representing 42.66% of all anesthesia and intensive care departments in the country. In 7 of the 12 examined dimensions, significant differences between tertiary and secondary hospitals were observed. Among all dimensions, the highest positive score was for “organizational learning and continuous development”. In general, our study revealed a positive view on patient safety in anesthesia and intensive care departments. Further studies are required to determine a threshold of the level of culture development.

(1) Background: Patient blood management (PBM) program as a multidisciplinary practice and a standard of care for the anemic surgical patient has an increasingly important role in reducing transfusions and optimizing both clinical outcomes and costs. Documented success of PBM implementation is not sufficient for implementation of recommendations and correct use at hospital level. The primary objective of our study was to define a composite patient blood management process safety index—Safety Index in PBM (SIPBM)—that measures the impact of screening and treating anemic patients on the efficiency and effectiveness of the patient care process undergoing elective surgery. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative study in a tertiary hospital by collecting data and analyzing the Safety Index in PBM (SIPBM) in patients undergoing major elective surgical procedures. (3) Results: The percentage of patients from the total of 354 patients (178 in 2019 and 176 in 2022) included in the study who benefited from preoperative iron treatment increased in 2022 compared to 2019 from 27.40% to 36.71%. The median value of the SIPBM was 1.00 in both periods analyzed, although there is a significant difference between the two periods (p < 0.005), in favor of 2022. (4) Conclusions: Measuring the effectiveness of PBM implementation and providing ongoing feedback through the Safety Index in PBM (SIPBM) increases the degree to which opportunities to improve the PBM process are identified. The study represents a first step for future actions and baselines to develop tools to measure the safety and impact of the patient blood management process in the surgical field.

Patient Blood Management (PBM) as a multidisciplinary practice and a standard of care for the anemic surgical patient is playing an increasingly important role in reducing transfusions and optimizing both clinical outcomes and costs. The success of PBM implementation depends on staff awareness and involvement in this approach. The main objective of our study was to explore physicians’ perceptions of the conditions for implementing PBM in hospitals and the main obstacles they face in detecting and treating anemic patients undergoing elective surgery. This cross-sectional descriptive study includes 113 Romanian health units, representing 23% of health units with surgical wards nationwide. A 12-item questionnaire was distributed to the participants in electronic format. A total of 413 questionnaires representing the perceptions of 347 surgeons and 66 anesthesia and intensive-care specialists were analyzed. Although a lack of human resources was indicated by 23.70% of respondents as the main reason for not adhering the guidelines, the receptiveness of medical staff to implementing the PBM standard was almost 90%. In order to increase adherence to the standard, additional involvement of anesthesia and intensive-care physicians would be necessary from the perception of 35.70% of the responders: 23.60% of surgeons and 18.40% of hematologists.

Background/Objectives: Over the past three decades, emergency medicine in Romania has evolved from a developing specialty into a cornerstone of the national healthcare system. As we reflect on these 30 years, it becomes evident that the lessons learned and the systems developed form a vital foundation for the future. This study aims to explore how the accumulated experience can guide us toward building a more resilient emergency medical system, one that prioritizes quality, ensures patient and provider safety, and embraces modern principles of healthcare management. The objectives of this study were to explore the long-term perspectives of physicians and nurses working in emergency departments (EDs), to determine the triggering factors that may lead to abandoning the specialty, and to identify of malpractice risks arising from doctor–patient interaction. Methods: This study employed an observational design and utilized an opinion questionnaire to assess the participants’ perspectives. Qualitative data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Quantitative data were expressed as means and standard deviations after verifying normal distribution with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Comparisons between groups for qualitative variables were conducted using the chi-square test. For comparisons of quantitative variables between two groups, Student’s t-test was employed following confirmation of homogeneity of variances with Levene’s test. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Out of 1228 estimated responders, 641 completed the questionnaire. A total of 577 of participants met the inclusion criteria: 256 (44.4%) nurses and 321 (55.6%) doctors, with an average age of the responders of 40.06 years. Nurses reported the highest level of managerial support (83.2%, p < 0.001). EPs had the highest rate of non-participation in working groups for procedures/protocols/guidelines (49.5%, p < 0.001). Intensive care unit medical doctors (ICU-MDs) and EPs were the main groups reporting a deficiency in employer-provided resources to manage conflict situations (63.7%, 61.7%; p <0.001). EPs (28%) reported practicing defensive medicine (inadequate educational support, the absence of clear protocols). Workplace burnout was reported by the ICU-MDs and EPs responders (96.3%; 93.4%; p < 0.001), and 26% of EPs expressed interest in professional reorientation. Conclusions: This study highlights four strategic directions for rebuilding a resilient healthcare system focused on improving quality of care and safety: development of procedures/protocols, managerial reorganization, restoration of healthcare professionals’ trust through new strategies, and academic development.