BackgroundResearch on patient safety in emergency medical services (EMS) has mainly focused on the organisation’s and/or the EMS personnel’s perspective. Little is known about how patients perceive safety in EMS. This study aims to describe the patients’ experiences of their sense of safety in EMS.MethodsA qualitative design with individual interviews of EMS patients (n=21) and an inductive qualitative content analysis were used.ResultsPatients’ experiences of EMS personnel’s ability or inability to show or use their medical, technical and driving skills affected the patients’ sense of safety. When they perceived a lack of professionalism and knowledge among EMS personnel, they felt unsafe. Patients highlighted equality in the encounter, the quality of the information given by EMS personnel and the opportunity to participate in their care as important factors creating a sense of safety during the EMS encounter. Altogether, patients’ perceptions of safety in EMS were connected to their confidence in the EMS personnel.ConclusionsOverall, patients felt safe during their EMS encounter, but the EMS personnel’s professional competence alone is not enough for them to feel safe. Lack of communication or professionalism may compromise their sense of safety. Further work is needed to explore how patients’ perceptions of safety can be used in improving safety in EMS.

Background Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is, by its nature, a challenging context that may create risks for both patients and employees. It is also known that an organisation’s safety culture has an influence on both patient and employee safety. Finnish EMS organisations lack knowledge of how their safety culture is perceived by their employees. Aim This study aims to test the psychometric properties of the Emergency Medical Services Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (EMS-SAQ) in a Finnish EMS setting. We also explore the connections between individual- and organisation-based characteristics and safety attitudes in the Finnish EMS. Methods A cross-sectional survey study design was used. The EMS-SAQ was used to collect data via social media. The instrument measures six domains of workplace safety culture: safety climate, teamwork climate, perceptions of management, job satisfaction, working conditions and stress recognition. The 5-point Likert scale was converted to a 100-point scale and mean ≥ 75 was dichotomized as a positive. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to validate the EMS-SAQ in a Finnish setting. Other results were analysed by using non-parametric tests. Results 327 responses were included in the analysis. CFA showed that the total EMS-SAQ model had acceptable goodness-of-fit values in the Finnish EMS setting. Total mean scores for each safety culture domain were identified non-positively (mean score < 75); safety climate 60.12, teamwork climate 60.92, perceptions of management 56.31, stress recognition 64.55, working conditions 53.43 and job satisfaction 70.36. Higher education was connected to lower job satisfaction and the teamwork climate within the individual characteristics. All organisation-based characteristics caused at least one significant variation in the safety culture domain scores. Working area significantly affected (p < 0.05) five out of the six safety culture domain scores. Conclusions The EMS-SAQ is a valid tool to evaluate safety culture among the Finnish EMS organisations; it offers a novel method to evaluate safety and patient safety within the Finnish EMS organisations. According to the findings, the organisation-based characteristics more likely had an impact on safety attitudes than did the individual-based characteristics. Therefore, it is suggested that the Finnish EMS organisations undertake safety culture development at the organisational level.