No abstract

BackgroundOrganizations that encourage the respectful expression of diverse spiritual views have higher productivity and performance, and support employees with greater organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Within healthcare, there is a paucity of studies which define or intervene on the spiritual needs of healthcare workers, or examine the effects of a pro-spirituality environment on teamwork and patient safety. Our objective was to describe a novel survey scale for evaluating spiritual climate in healthcare workers, evaluate its psychometric properties, provide benchmarking data from a large faith-based healthcare system, and investigate relationships between spiritual climate and other predictors of patient safety and job satisfaction.MethodsCross-sectional survey study of US healthcare workers within a large, faith-based health system.ResultsSeven thousand nine hundred twenty three of 9199 eligible healthcare workers across 325 clinical areas within 16 hospitals completed our survey in 2009 (86% response rate). The spiritual climate scale exhibited good psychometric properties (internal consistency: Cronbach α = .863). On average 68% (SD 17.7) of respondents of a given clinical area expressed good spiritual climate, although assessments varied widely (14 to 100%). Spiritual climate correlated positively with teamwork climate (r = .434, p < .001) and safety climate (r = .489, p < .001). Healthcare workers reporting good spiritual climate were less likely to have intentions to leave, to be burned out, or to experience disruptive behaviors in their unit and more likely to have participated in executive rounding (p < .001 for each variable).ConclusionsThe spiritual climate scale exhibits good psychometric properties, elicits results that vary widely by clinical area, and aligns well with other culture constructs that have been found to correlate with clinical and organizational outcomes.

Results showed significant variation with the recommendations. Areas in particular need of improvement were objective diagnosis and assessment, control of asthma-associated factors, and patient education. Furthermore, the study demonstrated significant variation between specialists and primary care physicians, with the more specialized clinics demonstrating better guideline compliance.

No abstract

No abstract