Skip to main content

Advertisement

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

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

Psychosocial working conditions Interpretation (0 = minimum value, 100 = maximum value) Mean (SD) (nurses = 564) Mean (SD) (physicians = 380) (df) t-value1 dCohen
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
 Quantitative demands high = negative 66.5 (13.5) 71.9 (13.9) (942) -5.974* 0.40
 Emotional demands high = negative 64.4 (18.3) 64.6 (16.5) (942) -.202 0.01
 Work-privacy-conflict high = negative 61.3 (24.4) 68.7 (25.1) (942) -4.497* 0.30
 Influence at work high = positive 36.3 (17.3) 38.8 (20.8) (710) -2.006* 0.13
 Degree of freedom at work high = positive 36.0 (15.9) 46.2 (20.0) (687) -8.373* 0.58
 Possibilities for development high = positive 71.6 (15.7) 79.6 (14.2) (942) -8.032* 0.53
 Meaning of work high = positive 77.7 (16.6) 82.9 (16.1) (942) -4.753* 0.32
 Workplace commitment high = positive 48.4 (18.8) 61.3 (19.2) (942) -10.220* 0.68
 Predictability high = positive 53.3 (16.4) 52.5 (19.3) (720) 0.710 −0.05
 Role clarity high = positive 73.5 (14.5) 72.5 (16.5) (740) 1.027 −0.07
 Role conflicts high = negative 50.6 (17.2) 45.1 (18.4) (942) 4.611* −0.31
 Feedback high = positive 41.9 (21.0) 41.0 (21.5) (942) 0.632 −0.04
 Social support high = positive 66.7 (17.0) 64.2 (17.0) (942) 2.169* −0.15
 Social relations high = positive 45.0 (17.0) 51.5 (15.1) (874) -6.194* 0.40
 Sense of community high = positive 77.8 (15.2) 76.7 (15.1) (942) 1.096 −0.07
Outcome scale – Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)  
 Job satisfaction high = positive 67.5 (10.2) 73.4 (12.0) (942) -8.135* 0.54
Outcome scale – Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI, adapted client-related burnout)
 Patient related burnout high = negative 36.5 (17.6) 28.0 (16.5) (942) 7.464* −0.50
Leadership Interpretation (0/1 = minimum value, 100/5 = maximum value) Mean (SD) (nurses = 543) Mean (SD) (physicians = 369) (df) t-value1 dCohen
Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI short)
 Transformational leadership 5 = positive 3.1 (0.8) 3.2 (0.8) (910) -1.605 0.13
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
 Quality of leadership high = positive 53.8 (22.7) 49.2 (22.9) (910) 3.031* −0.20
Patient safety climate Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) Mean (SD) (nurses = 558) Mean (SD) (physicians = 373) (df) t-value1 dCohen
Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)
 Staffing 5 = positive 2.4 (0.8) 2.8 (0.8) (929) -7.721* 0.50
 Organizational learning 5 = positive 3.0 (0.7) 3.1 (0.7) (762) -1.366 0.14
 Communication openness 5 = positive 3.7 (0.6) 3.4 (0.7) (758) 6.010* −0.47
 Feedback & communication about error 5 = positive 3.4 (0.8) 3.3 (0.9) (929) 1.519 −0.12
 Nonpunitive response to error 5 = positive 3.3 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) (929) -3.746* 0.25
 Teamwork within units 5 = positive 3.3 (0.6) 3.4 (0.6) (929) 1.326 0.17
 Teamwork across units 5 = positive 3.0 (0.6) 3.1 (0.7) (698) -3.316* 0.16
 Handoffs & transitions 5 = positive 3.2 (0.6) 2.9 (0.7) (713) 5.702* −0.47
 Supervisor/manager expectations 5 = positive 3.4 (0.7) 3.3 (0.7) (929) 1.020 −0.14
 Management support for patient safety 5 = positive 2.6 (0.8) 3.0 (0.8) (929) -5.797* 0.50
Outcome scales – Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)
 Frequency of event reported 5 = positive 3.0 (1.1) 2.9 (0.9) (874) 1.053 −0.10
 Overall perceptions of patient safety 5 = positive 2.9 (0.7) 3.3 (0.8) (929) -7.782* 0.54
 Patient safety grade 1 = positive 2.9 (0.8) 2.6 (0.7) (929) 7.456* −0.39
 Safety grade in the medication process 1 = positive 3.0 (0.8) 2.8 (0.7) (831) 5.065* −0.26
Patient safety climate Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) Mean (SD) (nurses = 543) Mean (SD) (physicians = 369) (df) t-value1 dCohen
TWINS Patient Safety
 Supervisor support for patient safety 5 = positive 3.4 (0.8) 3.5 (0.7) (910) -1.996* 0.13
 My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital 5 = positive 3.3 (0.9) 3.3 (1.0) (729) -0.865 0.00
 My direct supervisor focuses more on patient safety than a year ago 5 = positive 2.8 (0.9) 2.8 (1.0) (735) -0.27 0.00
 It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety 5 = positive 3.4 (0.9) 3.5 (0.9) (910) -1.509 0.11
 Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital 5 = positive 2.8 (0.8) 3.0 (0.9) (910) -4.188* 0.36
 Hospital management focuses more on patient safety than a year ago 5 = positive 2.7 (0.9) 2.8 (0.9) (910) -2.758* 0.12
 It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety 5 = positive 3.0 (1.0) 3.2 (1.0) (784) -3.698* 0.20
Do you have an individual influence on how well patient safety is implemented at the workplace 1 = positive 3.2 (0.9) 2.9 (1.0) (910) 4.558* −0.32
Occupational safety climate Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) Mean (SD) (nurses = 543) Mean (SD) (physicians = 369) (df) t-value1 dCohen
TWINS Occupational Safety
 Supervisor support for occupational safety 5 = positive 3.5 (0.8) 3.4 (0.8) (910) 1.050 −0.13
 My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital 5 = positive 3.3 (0.9) 3.2 (0.9) (910) 0.869 0.00
 My direct supervisor focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago 5 = positive 2.8 (0.9) 2.7 (0.9) (910) 0.628 −0.11
 It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety 5 = positive 3.3 (0.9) 3.2 (1.0) (910) 2.299* −0.11
 Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital 5 = positive 2.9 (0.9) 3.1 (0.9) (910) -3.337* 0.22
 Hospital management focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago 5 = positive 2.7 (0.9) 2.8 (0.9) (910) -1.936 0.11
 It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety 5 = positive 2.9 (0.9) 3.1 (1.0) (766) -2.720* 0.21
 Do you have an individual influence on how well occupational safety is implemented at the workplace 1 = positive 3.3 (0.9) 3.3 (1.0) (910) .893 0.00
Occupational safety climate Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) Mean (SD) (nurses = 560) Mean (SD) (physicians = 372) (df) t-value1 dCohen
Outcome scales – self constructed indices
 Subjective assessment of specific protective measures (behaviour & regulations) related to infectious diseases 1 = positive 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) (930) -1.132 0.00
 Subjective assessment of occupational safety measures initiated by the employer, related to own safety 1 = positive 1.7 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6) (930) -8.328* 0.50
 Personal perception of the frequency of occupational risks 5 = positive 3.2 (0.8) 3.5 (0.7) (853) -5.608* 0.39
  1. Notes: 1p-value* ≤.05