Skip to main content

Table 2 Evaluation of feedback in the report and on the website

From: Healthcare professionals’ views on feedback of a patient safety culture assessment

   Report (n = 20) Website (n = 13)
Item   Mean (CI) Scale 1–10 Mean (CI) Scale 1–10
1 I think that the patient safety culture feedback report/website is…   
   Understandable 6.8 (5.9–7.6) 7.3 (6.2–8.3)
   Interesting 7.6 (7.1–8.1) 7.5 (6.9–8.2)
   Useful 7.0 (6.2–7.8) 7.2 (6.3–8.1)
   Relevant 7.6 (7.2–8.0) 7.2 (6.2–8.1)
   Well-ordered 7.1 (6.5–7.7) 6.8 (5.9–7.8)
 Complete 7.2 (6.6–7.7) 7.1 (6.3–7.9)
   Attractive (lay-out) 7.3 (6.8–7.7) 7.3 (6.6–7.9)
   Total 7.2 (6.8–7.6) 7.2 (6.4–7.9)
  Report N (%)  
2 Do you miss any information in this report?   
 Yes 12 (60 %)  
3 Which statement reflects the patient safety culture report most:   
 we now see suggestions to improve patient safety culture 11 (55 %)  
 we now have insight, but we do not know how to improve 5 (25 %)  
 this report has brought us little new information 1 (5 %)  
 different statementsa 3 (15 %)  
4 Do you recognise your department/hospital in the results of this report?   
 no 0 (0 %)  
 partially 9 (47 %)  
 yes, absolutely 10 (53 %)  
  Website N (%)
2 Do you miss any information on this website?  
 Yes 3 (27 %)
3 General comments on the website [open-ended question] -
4 Why has your hospital performed a patient safety culture assessment (more options allowed)  
 diagnose safety culture 13 (100 %)
 evaluate patient safety interventions & track changes over time 7 (54 %)
 conduct internal/external benchmark 5 (38 %)
 fulfil directives or regulatory requirements 1 (8 %)
5 Have departments taken action to improve the patient safety culture?  
 no 1 (8 %)
 action will be taken 5 (42 %)
 yes 6 (50 %)
6 Has the feedback on patient safety culture stimulated this action?  
 no, not at all 2 (17 %)
 partly 5 (42 %)
 yes, absolutely 5 (42 %)
7 How can this feedback contribute (more) to action being taken? [open-ended question] -
  1. aAggregated scores on the hospital level were calculated when more questionnaires of one hospital were returned (e.g. from different department members). The following directives were followed for aggregating the results. Evaluation of the feedback report: item 1; average scores were calculated for every aspect; item 2; answer ‘yes’ was used when one respondent marked this option; item 3; the extra option ‘different statements’ was constructed when different options were marked and item 4; answer ‘partly’ was used when different options were marked. For the evaluation of the website, aggregation of the results was not necessary as only the contact persons returned the questionnaire