Skip to main content

Correction to: Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study

Correction to: BMC Health Serv Res

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7

In the original publication of this article [1], the authors missed that reverse coding was necessary for the item “Do you work separate from your colleagues?” before calculating the scale ‘social relations’. So they corrected the analysis accordingly. The results with the revised scale show that there are no longer any significant differences between nurses and physicians with regard to this scale.

This error (scale social relations) affects the following parts of our manuscript:

‘Methods’ section:

Old version: We also adapted one scale from the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (client-related burnout) to measure patient-related burnout [54]. Before calculating scale scores for each dimension and in accordance with the recommended COPSOQ transformation [52], scales were transformed into scores ranging from 0 (minimum value, “do not agree at all”) to 100 points (maximum value, “fully agree”).

Correction: We also adapted one scale from the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (client-related burnout) to measure patient-related burnout [54]. Before scale calculation, reverse coding was carried out for one item (“Do you work separate from your colleagues?”). Scale calculation was done in accordance with the recommended COPSOQ transformation [52], scales were transformed into scores ranging from 0 (minimum value, “do not agree at all”) to 100 points (maximum value, “fully agree”).

‘Result’ section:

Old version: There were no statistically significant differences between the two professional groups in the four scales predictability, role clarity, feedback, and sense of community.

Correction: There were no statistically significant differences between the two professional groups in the five scales predictability, role clarity, feedback, social relations, and sense of community.

Old version: We identified significant differences with small or medium effects in three scales (social support: d = −.15, role conflicts: d = −.31, and social relations: d = .40).

Correction: We identified significant differences with small or medium effects in two scales (social support: d = −.15, and role conflicts: d = −.31).

Old version: Physicians rated items on the scale social relations more positively (51.5 ± 15.1) than the nurses (45.0 ± 17.0).

Correction: Values for the scale social relations were relatively high for both physicians (54.8 ± 20.7) and nurses (55.5 ± 20.2). There was no significant difference between the two professional groups in rating the scale social relations.

‘Discussion’ section:

Old version: Our study found significant differences between the two professional groups in 12 out of 17 scales. Nine scales (influence at work, degree of freedom at work, possibilities for development, meaning of work, workplace commitment, role conflicts, social relations, job satisfaction, and the additional scale patient-related burnout) were significantly more positively assessed by physicians than the nursing staff),

Corrected version: Our study found significant differences between the two professional groups in 11 out of 17 scales. Eight scales (influence at work, degree of freedom at work, possibilities for development, meaning of work, workplace commitment, role conflicts, job satisfaction, and the additional scale patient-related burnout) were significantly more positively assessed by physicians than the nursing staff.

Revised Table 3

We corrected the values for the scale “Social relations”. We also detected some minor errors with no consequences and corrected them too (for the following scales or single items: “Emotional demands”, “Teamwork within units”, “My direct supervisor focuses more on patient safety than a year ago”, “Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital”, “Hospital management focuses more on patient safety than a year ago” and “My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital”.

Table 3 with the corrected values is shown below:

Table 3 Descriptive statistics, results of the student’s t test and effect size comparing answers by nurses and physicians

‘Additional file 1’: Revised version

We corrected the values for the scale “Social relations”. We also discovered another minor error (concerning the scale influence at work) and corrected the value too. The table with the corrected values is shown below:

Psychosocial working conditionsInterpretation
(0=minimum value, 100=maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 1 = 573)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 2 = 418)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
Quantitative demandshigh=negative68.4 (13.7)68.9 (14,5)(989) -0.5680.04
Emotional demandshigh=negative65.1 (17.7)63.1 (17,8)(989) 1.742-0.11
Work-privacy-conflicthigh=negative62.2 (25.5)66.0 (24,8)(989) -2.332*0.15
Influence at workhigh=positive36.1 (19.1)38.9 (18,5)(989) -2.295*0.15
Degree of freedom at workhigh=positive39.8 (18.5)40.9 (18,4)(989) -0.9260.06
Possibilities for developmenthigh=positive75.2 (16.2)74.3 (15,5)(989) 0.896-0.06
Meaning of workhigh=positive80.6 (16.0)78.5 (17,7)(989) 1.918-0.13
Workplace commitmenthigh=positive55.0 (18.8)51.8 (21,7)(820) 2.447*-0.16
Predictabilityhigh=positive54.7 (17.0)50.7 (18,5)(989) 3.452*-0.23
Role clarityhigh=positive74.3 (15.3)71.6 (15,9)(989) 2.746*-0.17
Role conflictshigh=negative47.3 (17.3)49.9 (18,9)(989) -2.267*0.15
Feedbackhigh=positive40.1 (20.7)43.5 (22,0)(866) -2.418*0.16
Social supporthigh=positive66,0 (16.4)65.4 (17,7)(858) 0.587-0.04
Social relationshigh=positive55.4 (20.5)55.9 (20.8)(989) -0.4010.02
Sense of communityhigh=positive78.1 (14.8)76.2 (15,2)(989) 1.949-0.13
Outcome scale – Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) 
Job satisfactionhigh=positive70.4 (11.1)69.3 (11.7)(989) 1.475-0.10
Outcome scale – Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI, adapted client-related burnout)
Patient related burnouthigh=negative33.4 (17.4)32.1 (18.0)(989) 1.141-0.07
LeadershipInterpretation
(0/1=minimum value, 100/5=maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 1 = 544)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 2 = 409)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI short)
Transformational leadership5=positive3.2 (0.8)3.2 (0.8)(951) 0.1910.00
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
Quality of leadershiphigh=positive52.7 (22.6)51.0 (23.4)(951) 1.095-0.07
Patient safety climateInterpretation
(1=minimum value, 5=maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 1 = 560)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 2 = 414)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)
Staffing5=positive2.5 (0.8)2.6 (0.8)(972) -0.9650.13
Organizational learning5=positive3.1 (0.7)3.0 (0.7)(972) 0.758-0.14
Communication openness5=positive3.6 (0.7)3.5 (0.7)(972) 2.207*-0.14
Feedback & communication about error5=positive3.4 (0.8)3.3 (0.9)(972) 2.315*-0.12
Nonpunitive response to error5=positive3.5 (0.8)3.2 (0.8)(843) 4.585*-0.38
Teamwork within units5=positive3.4 (0.6)3.3 (0.6)(972) 1.669-0.17
Teamwork across units5=positive3.1 (0.6)3.0 (0.6)(972) 1.800-0.17
Handoffs & transitions5=positive3.1 (0.6)3.0 (0.6)(972) 2.187*-0.17
Supervisor/ manager expectations5=positive3.3 (0.7)3.3 (0.7)(972) -0.2730.00
Management support for patient safety5=positive2.8 (0.9)2.7 (0.9)(972) 1.579-0.11
Outcome scales – Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)
Frequency of event reported5=positive3.0 (1.0)3.0 (1.0)(972) -0.1910.00
Overall perceptions of patient safety5=positive3.0 (0.8)3.1 (0.8)(972) -1.2620.13
Patient safety grade1=positive2.8 (0.8)2.8 (0.7)(972) 0.4050.00
Safety grade in the medication process1=positive2.8 (0.7)3.0 (0.8)(972) -2.730*0.27
Patient safety climateInterpretation
(1=minimum value, 5=maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 1 = 544)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 2 = 409)
(df) t-value1dCohen
TWINS Patient Safety (TWINS-PS)
Supervisor support for patient safety5=positive3.5 (0.8)3.5 (0.8)(951) 0.7020.00
My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital5=positive3.3 (0.9)3.3 (0.9)(951) -0.7940.00
My direct supervisor focuses more on patient safety than a year ago5=positive2.8 (0.9)2.8 (1.0)(847) 0.1910.00
It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety5=positive3.5 (0.9)3.5 (0.9)(951) 0.3800.00
Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital5=positive2.9 (0.8)2.8 (0.9)(864) 2.555*-0.12
Hospital management focuses more on patient safety than a year ago5=positive2.7 (0.9)2.8 (0.9)(951) -0.3820.11
It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety5=positive3.2 (0.9)3.0 (1.0)(951) 2.344*-0.21
Do you have an individual influence on how well patient safety is implemented at the workplace1=positive3.1 (0.9)3.0 (1.0)(951) 1.434-0.11
Occupational safety climateInterpretation
(1=minimum value, 5=maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 1 = 544)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 2 = 409)
(df) t-value1dCohen
TWINS Occupational Safety (TWINS-OS)
Supervisor support for occupational safety5=positive3.5 (0.8)3.4 (0.8)(951) 0.736-0.13
My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital5=positive3.3 (0.9)3.2 (0.9)(951) 1.683-0.11
My direct supervisor focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago5=positive2.8 (0.9)2.8 (0.9)(853) 0.8520.00
It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety5=positive3.3 (0.9)3.2 (1.0)(951) 1.252-0.11
Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital5=positive3.1 (0.9)2.9 (0.9)(951) 2.470*-0.22
Hospital management focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago5=positive2.7 (0.9)2.7 (1.0)(820) 0.2200.00
It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety5=positive3.1 (1.0)3.0 (1.0)(951) 1.193-0.10
Do you have an individual influence on how well occupational safety is implemented at the workplace1=positive3.3 (0.9)3.3 (1.0)(951) 0.8260.00
Occupational safety climateInterpretation
(1=minimum value, 5=maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 1 = 560)
Mean (SD)
(hospital 2 = 413)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Outcome scales – self constructed indices s
Subjective assessment of specific protective measures (behaviour & regulations) related to infectious diseases1=positive1.8 (0.6)1.8 (0.6)(971) 0.3960.00
Subjective assessment of occupational safety measures initiated by the employer, related to own safety1=positive1.8 (0.6)1.9 (0.6)(835) -1.6320.17
Personal perception of the frequency of occupational risks5=positive3.4 (0.7)3.3 (0.8)(825) 1.870-0.13
  1. Notes: 1p-value* ≤.05

Reference

  1. 1.

    Wagner, et al. Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:53 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anke Wagner.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagner, A., Rieger, M.A., Manser, T. et al. Correction to: Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res 20, 53 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4838-y

Download citation