Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs’ perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians. We performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate. A total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians. The WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals – especially for nurses.

Background: In the healthcare sector, a comprehensive safety culture includes both patient care-related and occupational aspects. In recent years, healthcare studies have demonstrated diverse relationships between aspects of psychosocial working conditions, occupational, and patient safety culture. The aim of this study was to consider and test relevant predictors for staff’s perceptions of occupational and patient safety cultures in hospitals and whether there are shared predictors. From two German university hospitals, 381 physicians and 567 nurses completed a questionnaire on psychosocial working conditions, occupational, and patient safety culture. Two regression models with predictors for occupational and patient safety culture were conceptually developed and empirically tested. In the Occupational Safety Culture model, job satisfaction (β = 0.26, p ≤ 0.001), work‒privacy conflict (β = −0.19, p ≤ 0.001), and patient-related burnout (β = −0.20, p ≤ 0.001) were identified as central predictors. Important predictors in the Patient Safety Culture model were management support for patient safety (β = 0.24, p ≤ 0.001), supervisor support for patient safety (β = 0.18, p ≤ 0.001), and staffing (β = 0.21, p ≤ 0.001). The two models mainly resulted in different predictors. However, job satisfaction and leadership seem to play an important role in both models and can be used in the development of a comprehensive management of occupational and patient safety culture.

Objectives: In recent years, several instruments for measuring patient safety culture (PSC) have been developed and implemented. Correct interpretation of survey findings is crucial for understanding PSC locally, for comparisons across settings or time, as well as for planning effective interventions. We aimed to evaluate the influence of gender, profession, and managerial function on perceptions of PSC and on the interplay between various dimensions and perceptions of PSC. Methods: We used German and Swiss survey data of frontline physicians and nurses (n = 1786). Data analysis was performed for the two samples separately using multivariate analysis of variance, comparisons of adjusted means, and series of multiple regressions. Results: Participants’ profession and managerial function had significant direct effect on perceptions of PSC. Although there was no significant direct effect of gender for most of the PSC dimensions, it had an indirect effect on PSC dimensions through statistically significant direct effects on profession and managerial function. We identified similarities and differences across participant groups concerning the impact of various PSC dimensions on Overall Perception of Patient Safety. Staffing and Organizational Learning had positive influence in most groups without managerial function, whereas Teamwork Within Unit, Feedback & Communication About Error, and Communication Openness had no significant effect. For female participants without managerial functions, Management Support for Patient Safety had a significant positive effect. Conclusions: Participant characteristics have significant effects on perceptions of PSC and thus should be accounted for in reporting, interpreting, and comparing results from different samples.

Background: Over recent years, the use of decision aids to promote shared decision-making have been examined. Studies on patient education and on continuing medical education for physicians are less common. This review analyzes intervention and evaluation studies on patient education and continuing medical education which aim to enhance shared decision-making. The following study parameters are of interest: Study designs, objectives, numbers of participants in the education courses, interventions, primary results, and quality of the studies. Methods: We systematically searched for suitable studies in two databases (Pubmed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) from the beginning of April through to mid-June 2016. Results: 16 studies from a total of 462 hits were included: Three studies on patient education and 13 studies on continuing medical education for physicians. Overall, the study parameters were heterogeneous. Major differences were found between the courses; how the courses were conducted, their length, and participants. Conclusions: The differences found in the studies made it difficult to compare the interventions and the results. There is a need for studies that systematically evaluate and further develop interventions in this area to promote shared decision-making.

Background: In 2015, the WorkSafeMed study assessed, amongst others, perceived psychosocial working conditions in nurses (n = 567) and physicians (n = 381) from two German university hospitals using scales from the German standard version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire). This standard version is based on the international COPSOQ I and II. Since 2017, a further developed version of the German COPSOQ (G-COPSOQ III) has been available and data from this version are stored in the German COPSOQ database. The aim of the present study was to compare scales depicting perceived psychosocial workloads and strain in hospital staff from the WorkSafeMed study with reference data (hospital care nurses, general hospital physicians, reference values across all occupations) from the German COPSOQ database (2012–2017). As preliminary work, we explored whether a conversion of COPSOQ scales based on data from the WorkSafeMed study to the G-COPSOQ III scales was possible. Methods: We applied a multistep approach for conversion. First, we compared 17 COPSOQ scales used in the WorkSafeMed study with the corresponding scales from the G-COPSOQ III according to content and then decided if a conversion was appropriate. If possible, we converted WorkSafeMed scales - the converted scales comprised the same content and number of items as in G-COPSOQ III. An explorative statistical analysis for each original and converted WorkSafeMed scale followed detecting possible statistical and relevant differences between the scales. We then compared converted WorkSafeMed scales with reference data from the German COPSOQ database. Results: Based on the comparison undertaken according to content, a conversion was possible for 16 scales. Using the data from the WorkSafeMed study, the statistical analysis showed only differences between original and converted COPSOQ scales “control over working time” (mean 40.2 vs. 51.8, d_Cohen = 0.56) and “social relations” (mean 55.6 vs. 41.8, d_Cohen = − 0.55). Comparing converted WorkSafeMed scales with reference data revealed higher values for “quantitative demands”, “work-privacy-conflict”, and “job satisfaction” in the WorkSafeMed sample. Conclusions: The conversion of WorkSafeMed scales was appropriate, allowed a comparison with three reference values in the German COPSOQ database and revealed some implications for improving psychosocial working conditions of nurses and physicians in university hospitals in Germany.

Background: The aim of the present study was to obtain an overview of occupational safety culture by assessing and mapping determinants in different workplaces (hospital workplaces and workplaces in construction, manufacturing, and other industry sectors) using an already established theoretical framework with seven clusters developed by Cornelissen and colleagues. We further derived implications for further research on determinants of occupational safety culture for the hospital workplace by comparing the hospital workplace with other workplaces. Methods: We conducted an integrative literature review and searched systematically for studies in four research databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). The search was undertaken in 2019, and updated in April 2020. Results of the included studies were analyzed and mapped to the seven clusters proposed by Cornelissen and colleagues. Results: After screening 5566 hits, 44 studies were included. Among these, 17 studies were conducted in hospital workplaces and 27 were performed in other workplaces. We identified various determinants of an occupational safety culture. Most studies in hospital and other workplaces included determinants referring to management and colleagues, to workplace characteristics and circumstances, and to employee characteristics. Only few determinants in the studies referred to other factors such as socio-economic factors or to content relating to climate and culture. Conclusions: The theoretical framework used was helpful in classifying various determinants from studies at different workplaces. By comparing and contrasting results of studies investigating determinants at the hospital workplace with those addressing other workplaces, it was possible to derive implications for further research, especially for the hospital sector. To date, many determinants for occupational safety culture known from workplaces outside of the healthcare system have not been addressed in studies covering hospital workplaces. For further studies in the hospital workplace, it may be promising to address determinants that have been less studied so far to gain a more comprehensive picture of important determinants of an occupational safety culture in the hospital sector.