Objectives This study was conducted to explore the relationship between the nursing work environment and medical error reporting practices among Jordanian nurses. Methods This study was a cross-sectional survey of 334 participants who were conveniently selected from three types of hospitals (private, teaching and public) in Amman city, Jordan. The data were collected using a standardized questionnaire which was adopted from previous studies and consisted of three main sections including demographics, nursing work environment (The Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index) and medical error reporting practices (incident reporting practice scale). SPSS version 26 was used for data analysis. Key findings The study findings detected a strong positive relationship between the nursing work environment and medical error reporting practices. ‘Nurse’s participation in hospital affairs’ showed the highest impact on medical error reporting practices among nurses. Based on the regression model, the nursing work environment explained 65.1% of variations in nurses’ medical error reporting practices. It was found that medical error reporting practices were statistically different across marital status and hospital type. Conclusions Based on data analysis findings, the nursing work environment was statistically strongly correlated to medical error reporting practices. To improve medical error reporting practices among nurses, decision-makers and hospital administrators should redesign their nursing work environment to create a more positive and favourable work environment.

Background Intraoperative awareness is the second most common complication of surgeries, and it negatively affects patients and healthcare professionals. Based on the limited previous studies, there is a wide variation in the incidence of intraoperative awareness and in the practices and attitudes toward depth of anesthesia (DoA) monitoring among healthcare systems and anesthesiologists. This study aimed to evaluate the Jordanian anesthesiologists’ practice and attitudes toward DoA monitoring and estimate the event rate of intraoperative awareness among the participating anesthesiologists. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional survey of Jordanian anesthesiologists working in public, private, and university hospitals was utilized using a questionnaire developed based on previous studies. Practice and attitude in using DoA monitors were evaluated. Anesthesiologists were asked to best estimate the number of anesthesia procedures and frequency of intraoperative awareness events in the year before. Percentages and 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI) were reported and compared between groups using chi-square tests. Results A total of 107 anesthesiologists responded and completed the survey. About one-third of the respondents (34.6%; 95% CI 26.1–44.2) had never used a DoA monitor and only 6.5% (95% CI 3.1–13.2) reported using it as a “daily practice”. The use of a DoA monitor was associated with experience and type of health sector. However, 81.3% (95% CI 66.5–83.5) believed that currently available DoA monitors are effective for DoA monitoring and only 4.7% (95%CI 1.9–10.8) reported it as being “invalid”. Most respondents reported that the main purpose of using a DoA monitor was to prevent awareness (86.0%; 95%CI 77.9–91.4), guide the delivery of anesthetics (63.6%; 95%CI 53.9–72.2), and reduce recovery time (57%; 95%CI 47.4–66.1). The event rate of intraoperative awareness was estimated at 0.4% among participating anesthesiologists. Most Jordanian hospitals lacked policy intending to prevent intraoperative awareness. Conclusions Most anesthesiologists believed in the role of DoA monitors in preventing intraoperative awareness, however, their attitudes and knowledge are inadequate, and few use DoA monitors in routine practices. In Jordan, large efforts are needed to regulate the use of DoA monitoring and reduce the incidence of intraoperative awareness.

Background Intraoperative awareness is the second most common complication of surgeries, and it negatively affects patients and healthcare professionals. Based on the limited previous studies, there ‎is a wide variation in the incidence intraoperative awareness and in the practices and attitudes of depth of anesthesia (DoA) monitoring among healthcare systems and anesthesiologists. This study aimed to evaluate the Jordanian anesthesiologists’ practice and attitudes toward DoA monitoring and their estimation of the incidence of ‎intraoperative awareness. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional survey of the Jordanian anesthesiologists working in public, private, and university hospitals was utilized using questionnaire ‎developed based on previous studies. Practice and attitude in using DoA monitors were evaluated. Anesthesiologists were asked to best estimate the number of anesthesia procedures and frequency of intraoperative awareness events in the year before. Percentages and 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI) were reported and compared between groups using chi-square tests.‎ Results A total of 107 physicians participated and completed the survey. About one-third of the participant (34.6%; 95% CI 26.1–44.2) had never used a DoA monitor and only 6.5% (96% CI ) reported using it as a “daily practice”. The use of a DoA monitor was associated with experience and type of health sector. However, 81.3% (95% CI 66.5–83.5) believed that currently available DoA monitors are effective for DoA monitoring, and only 4.7% (95%CI ‎1.9–10.8‎) reported it as being “invalid”. Most participants reported that the main purpose of using the DoA monitor was to prevent awareness (86.0%; 95%CI 77.9–91.4), guide the delivery of anesthetics (63.6%; 95%CI 53.9–72.2), and reduce recovery time (57%; 95%CI 47.4–66.1). The event rate of intraoperative awareness was estimated at 0.4% among participated anesthesiologists. Most of participants’ hospitals lacked policy intended to prevent intraoperative awareness. Conclusions Most anesthesiologists believed in the role of DoA monitors in preventing intraoperative awareness, however, their attitudes and knowledge are inadequate, and few use DoA monitors in routine practices. In Jordan, large efforts are needed to regulate the use of DoA monitoring and reduce the incidence of intraoperative awareness.