Purpose: To learn the weaknesses and strengths of safety culture as expressed by the dimensions measured by the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) at hospitals in the various cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to identify studies that have used the HSOPSC to collect data on safety culture at hospitals; to survey their findings in the safety culture dimensions and possible contributions to improving the quality and safety of hospital care. Data sources: Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus were searched from 2005 to July 2016 in English, Portuguese and Spanish. Study selection: Studies were identified using specific search terms and inclusion criteria. A total of 33 articles, reporting on 21 countries, was included. Data extraction: Scores were extracted by patient safety culture dimensions assessed by the HSOPSC. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the STROBE Statement. Results: The dimensions that proved strongest were 'Teamwork within units' and 'Organisational learning-continuous improvement'. Particularly weak dimensions were 'Non-punitive response to error', 'Staffing', 'Handoffs and transitions' and 'Teamwork across units'. Conclusion: The studies revealed a predominance of hospital organisational cultures that were underdeveloped or weak as regards patient safety. For them to be effective, safety culture evaluation should be tied to strategies designed to develop safety culture hospital-wide.

Background Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition in western countries and is associated with persistent disability and high consumption of health care resources. NSLBP patients first seek primary health care services but the outcomes are often uncertain. This study aimed to examine the clinical course of the outcomes and to identify prognostic indicators for poor outcomes in NSLBP patients who consulted primary care. Methods A prospective cohort study of 115 patients seeking treatment for NSLBP in primary care was conducted. Participants were consecutively recruited by their General Practitioners (GPs) and then assessed at baseline and 2 and 6 months later. Baseline assessment included socio-demographic and clinical data, psychosocial factors, pain, disability, and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Pain, disability, HRQoL and global perception of change were also assessed at 2 and 6-months' follow-up. In addition, information regarding the GP' practice was collected. Poor outcomes were determined according to the cutoff point used to define a persistent disabling condition and the minimal important change established for disability, pain and for global perception of change. The relationship between variables on baseline and poor outcomes was modulated through binary logistic regression analysis. The significance of associations was evaluated at � 0.05 p-value with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR). Results 110 (94.8%) and 104 (89.7%) participants completed the follow-up assessment at 2 and 6 months, respectively. The mean age (±SD) was 48.06 ± 11.41, with 53.9%, (N = 62)

BackgroundThe results of a recent study have suggested that the current clinical practice is not in line with clinical guideline recommendations and may not be delivering the best outcomes to Low Back Pain (LBP) Portuguese patients. Since the stratified primary care approach has demonstrated clinical and cost-effectiveness in the UK and other countries, the SPLIT project aimed to introduce a similar approach that involves general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) in the triage and targeted treatment for LBP patients, in Portugal. In order to facilitate the implementation of this project a training program for GPs and PTs was delivered by rheumatologists and PTs. Considering the specific organization of the Portuguese primary care, it was important to explore the perceptions of the GPs and PTs, who attended to the training, regarding the implementation of the SPLIT stratified model of care in the Portuguese context.ObjectivesIdentify and understand the potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the SPLIT stratified model of care.MethodsAfter obtaining ethical approval, two focus groups (one for each professional group) were carried out. The focus groups were based on a semi-structured interview schedule, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted. Firstly, two researchers independently coded the transcripts. Secondly, these researchers discussed the codes and examined their scope and relevance. Thirdly, the researchers developed a coding scheme that included the main themes and sub-themes, as well as the connections among them.ResultsThe potential barriers were identified and explored by both professional groups. The introduction of change into the routine delivery care was identified as one of the most important barriers. According to the GPs` perspective, the possibility of inadequate referral was considered as an issue. The PTs highlighted the challenges inherent to the psychosocial informed physiotherapy treatment of patients classified with high risk of developing persistent and disabling pain. More specifically, they emphasised the need to receive mentoring sessions in clinical practice, in order to develop competences for the management of psychosocial issues.In what concerns to the potential facilitators to the implementation of the model, the participants` personal motivation was considered as one of the most important factors. The alignment of the SPLIT model with the mission and goals of the health care units where the project was going to be piloted was also identified as an important facilitator. Finally, both professionals groups considered that the SPLIT model may facilitate the interdisciplinary approach to the management of this condition, as it clarifies the specific contribution of GPs and PTs in the approach to LBP patientsConclusionThe knowledge about the potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the SPLIT stratified model of care may contribute to the successful implementation of stratified care for LBP patients ...

Background and objectiveThe SPLIT project aims to introduce an interdisciplinary stratified model of care for patients with low back pain. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and identify potential barriers and facilitators regarding the upcoming implementation of this project, based on the general practitioners' and physiotherapists' perceptions.MethodsA qualitative study was carried out supported by two focus groups, which were conducted by two researchers. A focus group was carried out with each professional group. One focus group included six general practitioners and the other included six physiotherapists. The focus groups were based on a semi-structured interview schedule, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsThe participants explored aspects related to the acceptability of the SPLIT project, emphasising the satisfactory amount of effort that is expected to be required for its implementation. Potential facilitators to the implementation of the model were identified, such as the participants`motivation. Potential barriers were also explored, with particular emphasis on the challenges related to the change of routine care. Lastly, the need for particular adjustments in the health services was also highlighted.ConclusionsThis study`s participants highlighted the feasibility and acceptability of the SPLIT project. The identification of potential barriers and facilitators to its implementation also attained major relevance to better prepare the upcoming implementation of this project. The generalizability of findings to the larger population of relevant practitioners is limited, since only two focus groups were carried out. Therefore, this study`s findings should be considered in terms of transferability to contexts that may have some similarities to the context where the study was carried out.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of interventions to provide emotional and psychological support to healthcare workers in many countries. This ecological study aims to describe the strategies implemented in different countries to support healthcare professionals during the outbreak. Data were collected through an online survey about the measures to address the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and academics were invited to respond to the survey. Fifty-six professionals from 35 countries contributed data to this study. Ten countries (28.6%) reported that they did not launch any national interventions. Both developed and developing countries launched similar initiatives. There was no relationship between the existence of any type of initiative in a country with the incidence, lethality, and mortality rates of the country due to COVID-19, and per capita income in 2020. The 24 h hotline for psychological support was the most frequent intervention. Tools for self-rescue by using apps or websites were extensively used, too. Other common interventions were the development of action protocols, availability of regular and updated information, implantation of distance learning systems, early detection of infection programs for professionals, economic reinforcements, hiring of staff reinforcement, and modification of leave and vacation dates.