Introduction: Adverse events in hospitals are prevented through risk reduction and reliable processes. Highly reliable hospitals are grounded by a robust patient safety culture with effective communication, leadership, teamwork, error reporting, continuous improvement, and organizational learning. Although hospitals regularly measure their patient safety culture for strengths and weaknesses, there have been no systematic reviews with meta-analyses reported from Latin America. Purpose: Our systematic review aims to produce evidence about the status of patient safety culture in Latin American hospitals from studies using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC). Methods: This systematic review was guided by the JBI guidelines for evidence synthesis. Four databases were systematically searched for studies from 2011 to 2021 originating in Latin America. Studies identified for inclusion were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including meta-analysis for professional subgroups and meta-regression for subgroup effect, were calculated. Results: In total, 30 studies from five countries—Argentina (1), Brazil (22), Colombia (3), Mexico (3), and Peru (1)—were included in the review, with 10,915 participants, consisting primarily of nursing staff (93%). The HSOPSC dimensions most positive for patient safety culture were “organizational learning: continuous improvement” and “teamwork within units”, while the least positive were “nonpunitive response to error” and “staffing”. Overall, there was a low positive perception (48%) of patient safety culture as a global measure (95% CI, 44.53–51.60), and a significant difference was observed for physicians who had a higher positive perception than nurses (59.84; 95% CI, 56.02–63.66). Conclusions: Patient safety culture is a relatively unknown or unmeasured concept in most Latin American countries. Health professional programs need to build patient safety content into curriculums with an emphasis on developing skills in communication, leadership, and teamwork. Despite international accreditation penetration in the region, there were surprisingly few studies from countries with accredited hospitals. Patient safety culture needs to be a priority for hospitals in Latin America through health policies requiring annual assessments to identify weaknesses for quality improvement initiatives.

Purpose Systems thinking is the ability to recognize and synthesize patterns, interactions, and interdependencies in a set of activities and is a key component in quality and safety. A measure of systems thinking is needed to advance our understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to improvement efforts. The purpose of this study was to develop and conduct psychometric testing of a systems thinking scale (STS). Methods The development of the STS included obtaining national quality and safety experts’ conceptual domains of systems thinking and the generation of a provisional set of items. Further psychometric analyses were conducted with interprofessional healthcare faculty (N = 342) and students (N = 224) engaged in quality improvement initiatives and education. Results Of the 26 items identified in the development phase, factor analyses indicated three factors: (1) system thinking (20 items), (2) personal effort (2 items), and (3) reliance on authority (4 items). The six items from factors 2 and 3 were omitted due to low factor loadings. Test-retest reliability of the 20-item STS was performed on 36 healthcare professionals and a correlation of 0.74 was found. Internal consistency testing on a sample of 342 healthcare professionals using Cronbach’s alpha showed a coefficient of 0.89. Discriminant validity was confirmed with three groups of healthcare professions students (N = 102) who received high, low, or no dose levels of systems thinking education in the context of process improvement. Conclusions The 20-item STS is a valid and reliable instrument that is easy to administer and takes less than 10 min to complete. Further research using the STS has the potential to advance the science and education of quality improvement in two main ways: (1) increase understanding of a critical mechanism by which quality improvement processes achieve results, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of our education to improve systems thinking.

Nurses spend more time with patients than do any other health care providers, and patient outcomes are affected by nursing care quality. Thus, improvements in patient safety can be achieved by improving nurse performance. We review the literature on nursing performance, including cognitive, physical, and organizational factors that affect such performance, focusing on research studies that reported original data from nurse participants. Our review indicates that the nurse's work system often does not accommodate human limits and capabilities and that nurses work under cognitive, perceptual, and physical overloads. Specifically, nurses engage in multiple tasks under cognitive load and frequent interruptions, and they encounter insufficient lighting, illegible handwriting, and poorly designed labels. They spend a substantial amount of their time walking, work long shifts, and experience a high rate of musculoskeletal disorders. Research is overdue in the areas of cognitive processes in nursing, effects of interruptions on nursing performance, communications during patient handoffs, and situation awareness in nursing. Human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) professionals must play a key role in the redesign of the nurses' work system to determine how overloads can be reduced and how the limits and capabilities of performance can be accommodated. Collaboration between nurses and HF/E specialists is essential to improve nursing performance and patient safety.

Background: Poorly organized health systems with inadequate leadership limit the development of the robust safety cultures capable of preventing consequential adverse events. Although safety culture has been studied in hospitals worldwide, the relationship between clinician perceptions about patient safety and their actual clinical practices has received little attention. Despite the need for mixed methods studies to achieve a deeper understanding of safety culture, there are few studies providing comparisons of hospitals in different countries. Purpose: This study compared the safety culture of hospitals from the perspective of nurses in four European countries, including Croatia, Hungary, Spain, and Sweden. Design: A comparative mixed methods study with a convergent parallel design. Methods: Data collection included a survey, participant interviews, and workplace observations. The sample was nurses working in the internal medicine, surgical, and emergency departments of two public hospitals from each country. Survey data (n = 538) was collected with the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) and qualitative date was collected through 24 in-depth interviews and 147 h of non-participant observation. Survey data was analyzed descriptively and inferentially, and content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Results: The overall perception of safety culture for most dimensions was ‘adequate’ in Sweden and ‘adequate’ to ‘poor’ in the other countries with inconsistencies identified between survey and qualitative data. Although teamwork within units was the most positive dimension across countries, the qualitative data did not consistently demonstrate support, respect, and teamwork as normative attributes in Croatia and Hungary. Staffing and workload were identified as major areas for improvement across countries, although the nurse-to-patient ratios were the highest in Sweden, followed by Spain, Hungary, and Croatia. Conclusions: Despite all countries being part of the European Union, most safety culture dimensions require improvement, with few measured as good, and most deemed to be adequate to poor. Dimension level perceptions were at times incongruent across countries, as observed patient safety practices or interview perspectives were inconsistent with a positive safety culture. Differences between countries may be related to national culture or variability in health system structures permitted by the prevailing European Union health policy.

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has led to a global surge in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, some of whom may benefit from tracheostomy. Decisions on if, when, and how to perform tracheostomy in patients with COVID‐19 have major implications for patients, clinicians, and hospitals. We investigated the tracheostomy protocols and practices that institutions around the world have put into place in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic.Data Sources: Protocols for tracheostomy in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from individual institutions (n = 59) were obtained from the United States and 25 other countries, including data from several low‐ and middle‐income countries, 23 published or society‐endorsed protocols, and 36 institutional protocols.Review Methods: The comparative document analysis involved cross‐sectional review of institutional protocols and practices. Data sources were analyzed for timing of tracheostomy, contraindications, preoperative testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), surgical technique, and postoperative management.Conclusions: Timing of tracheostomy varied from 3 to >21 days, with over 90% of protocols recommending 14 days of intubation prior to tracheostomy. Most protocols advocate delaying tracheostomy until COVID‐19 testing was negative. All protocols involved use of N95 or higher PPE. Both open and percutaneous techniques were reported. Timing of tracheostomy changes ranged from 5 to >30 days postoperatively, sometimes contingent on negative COVID‐19 test results.Implications for Practice: Wide variation exists in tracheostomy protocols, reflecting geographical variation, different resource constraints, and limited data to drive evidence‐based care standards. Findings presented herein may provide reference points and a framework for evolving care standards.

Background: Sexual health is a multidimensional phenomenon constructed by personal, social, and cultural factors but continues to be studied with a biomedical approach. During the postpartum period, a woman transitions to mother, as well as partner-to-parent and couple-to-family. There are new realities in life in the postpartum period, including household changes and new responsibilities that can impact the quality of sexual health. This phenomenon is understudied especially in the context of Spain. The purpose of this study was to describe the lived experience of postpartum sexual health among primiparous women giving birth in Catalonia (Spain). Methods: This was a phenomenological study with a purposive sample of primiparous women. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews until saturation. Analysis followed Colaizzi’s seven-step process with an eighth translation step added to limit cross-cultural threats to validity. Also, the four dimensions of trustworthiness were established through strategies and techniques during data collection and analysis. Results: Ten women were interviewed from which five themes emerged, including: Not feeling ready, inhibiting factors, new reality at home, socio-cultural factors, and the clinician within the health system. Returning to sexual health led women to engage in experiential learning through trial and error. Most participants reported reduced libido, experienced altered body image, and recounted resumption of sexual activity before feeling ready. A common finding was fatigue and feeling overloaded by the demands of the newborn. Partner support was described as essential to returning to a meaningful relationship. Discussions about postpartum sexual health with clinicians were described as taboo, and largely absent from the care model. Conclusion: Evidence-based practices should incorporate the best evidence from research, consider the postpartum sexual health experiences and preferences of the woman, and use clinician expertise in discussions that include the topic of postpartum sexual health to make decisions. As such, human caring practices should be incorporated into clinical guidelines to recognize the preferences of women. Clinicians need to be authentically present, engage in active communication, and individualize their care. More qualitative studies are needed to understand postpartum sexual health in different contexts, cultures, and countries and to identify similarities and differences through meta-synthesis.