Background: Patient safety culture is defined as a product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behavior that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organization's health and safety management. Factors influencing healthcare workers' working environment such as working hours, the number of night shifts, and the number of days off may be associated with patient safety culture, and the association pattern may differ by profession. This study aimed to examine the relationship between patient safety culture and working environment. Methods: Questionnaire surveys were conducted in 2015 and 2016. The first survey was conducted in hospitals in Japan to investigate their patient safety management system and activities and intention to participate in the second survey. The second survey was conducted in 40 hospitals; 100 healthcare workers from each hospital answered a questionnaire that was the Japanese version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture for measuring patient safety culture. The relationship of patient safety culture with working hours in a week, the number of night shifts in a month, and the number of days off in a month was analyzed. Results: Response rates for the first and second surveys were 22.4% (731/3270) and 94.2% (3768/4000), respectively. Long working hours, numerous night shifts, and few days off were associated with low patient safety culture. Despite adjusting the working hours, the number of event reports increased with an increase in the number of night shifts. Physicians worked longer and had fewer days off than nurses. However, physicians had fewer composites of patient safety culture score related to working hours, the number of night shifts, and the number of days off than nurses.

Although a variety of patient safety interventions have been implemented, prioritizing them in a limited resource environment is important. The intervention priorities of patient safety managers may differ from those of patient safety experts. This study aimed to clarify the difference in prioritization of interventions between experts and safety managers to better identify interventions that should be promoted in Japan. We performed a secondary data analysis of two surveys: the Delphi survey for Japanese experts and a nationwide questionnaire survey for safety managers in hospitals. Regarding the 32 interventions constituting 14 organizational-level and 18 clinical-level interventions examined in the previous studies, we assessed three correlations to examine the difference in prioritization between experts and safety managers: correlations between experts and safety managers in the three perspectives (contribution, dissemination, and priority), those between priorities of experts and safety managers at the clinical and organizational level, and those among the three perspectives in experts and safety managers. Contribution (r = 0.768) and dissemination (r = 0.689) of patient safety interventions evaluated by experts and safety managers were positively correlated, but priorities were not. Interventions with priorities that differed between experts and safety managers were identified. In experts, there was no significant correlation between contribution and priority or between dissemination and priority. For safety managers, contributions (r = 0.812) and dissemination (r = 0.691) were positively correlated with priority. Our results suggest that patient safety managers evaluated future priority based on past contributions and current dissemination, whereas experts evaluated future priority based on other factors, such as expected impacts in the future, as mentioned in the previous study. In health policymaking, promotion of patient safety interventions that were given high priority by experts, but low priority by safety managers, should be considered with possible incentives.