Skip to main content

Table 5 Main effect by two-way ANOVA between labor ward

From: Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of patient safety culture and teamwork in intrapartum care: a cross-sectional study

  Labor ward 1 n = 54 Labor ward 2 n = 72 Labor ward 3 n = 52 F P value Tukey’s HSD Effect size5
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
S-Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture
Unit level dimensions
  Communication openness1 3.6 (.60) 3.7 (.65) 3.9 (.61) F(2,164) = 2.39 .095   
  Feedback and communication about error1 3.5 (.67) 4.0 (.70) 3.9 (.67) F(2,164) = 9.07 .000 2 > 1 (p = .001)
3 > 1 (p = .008)
.10
  Nonpunitive response to error2 3.6 (.74) 3.9 (.76) 3.7 (.80) F(2,164) = 4.01 .020 2 > 1 (p = .014) .05
  Organizational learning – continuous improvement2 3.4 (.55) 3.7 (.64) 3.8 (.60) F(2,164) = 8.97 .000 2 > 1 (p = .001)
3 > 1 (p = .001)
.10
  Staffing2 3.1 (.78) 3.3 (1.05) 3.3 (.81) F(2,165) = 1.13 .326   
  Supervisor/manager expectations and actions promoting patient safety2 3.7 (.68) 3.6 (.93) 4.0 (.67) F(2,164) = 2.28 .106   
  Teamwork within units2 4.2 (.48) 4.3 (.63) 4.3 (.42) F(2,165) = 3.57 .031 Not significant  
  Information and support to patients and family who have suffered an adverse event2 3.9 (.64) 4.0 (.63) 3.9 (.63) F(2,165) = 4.45 .013 Not significant  
  Information and support to staff who have been involved in an adverse event2 3.5 (.93) 3.7 (.87) 3.8 (.87) F(2,164) = 2.18 .116   
 Hospital level dimensions
  Handoffs and transitions2 3.4 (.71) 3.9 (.58) 3.6 (.73) F(2,166) = 4.62 .0114   
  Management support for patient safety2 3.2 (.72) 2.8 (.87) 2.9 (.87) F(2,165) = 2.71 .069   
  Teamwork across units2 3.5 (.58) 3.3 (.75) 3.7 (.66) F(2,166) = 5.22 .0064 3 > 2 (p = .002) .06
Outcome dimensions
  Frequency of events reported1 3.1 (.74) 3.3 (.88) 3.3 (.82) F(2,163) = 1.71 .185   
  Overall perceptions of patient safety2 3.7 (.71) 3.8 (.79) 3.8 (.58) F(2,165) = .59 .555   
TeamSTEPPS® Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire n = 57 n = 71 n = 55     
 Team Structure3 3.8 (.69) 4.1 (.75) 3.9 (.59) F(2,168) = 3.07 .049 2 > 1 (p = .011) .04
 Leadership3 3.4 (.76) 3.5 (1.03) 4.1 (.74) F(2,168) = 8.67 .0004 3 > 1 (p = .000)
3 > 2 (p = .001)
.09
 Situation monitoring3 3.9 (.59) 4.1 (.66) 3.7 (.54) F(2,167) = 4.87 .009 2 > 3 (p = .003) .06
 Mutual support3 3.7 (.64) 3.9 (.76) 3.8 (.53) F(2,167) = 2.68 .072   
 Communication3 3.8 (.65) 4.1 (.59) 3.8 (.56) F(2,168) = 4.68 .011 2 > 1 (p = .006)
2 > 3 (p = .007)
.05
  1. 1Scale ranged from 1 = ‘Never’ to 5 = ‘Always’
  2. 2Scale ranged from 1 = ‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘Strongly agree’
  3. 3Scale ranged from 1 = ‘Strongly disagree with the statement’ to 5 = ‘Strongly agree with the statement’
  4. 4Levene’s test was significant: p < .01
  5. 5Effect size with partial eta squared