gms | German Medical Science

Background and current state of (inter)national research: Evidence about the safety performance of healthcare professionals is rare, although they take a central part to maintain and improve patient safety. In health services research as well as patient safety research, there is a lack of adequate instruments that measure performance in a valid, reliable way. One way to measure behaviours are situational judgement tests (SJT), which is one measurement method typically composed of job-related situations which describe a problem requiring the application of skills, abilities and knowledge to solve.

Research questions and objectives: The aim was to develop, test and validate a situational judgement test which measures the safety performance of healthcare professionals in German hospitals.

Methods or hypothesis: The development of the SJT follows the recommendation of Fiona Patterson et al. [1]. A team of researchers, nurses and physicians developed seven items, focusing on different safety aspects including infection prevention, communication, patient identification, patient involvement, prophylaxis, workplace safety, and hygiene. To develop the safety performance score (SPS), the form of expert scoring was selected. A SPS between 0–2 indicated a basic safety performance, a score between 3-4 indicated an advanced safety performance, and a score between 5-6 indicated an expert safety performance. A cross sectional postal and online survey with healthcare professionals in three German hospitals was conducted. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, as well as analysis of validity of the instrument.

Results: 159 healthcare professionals participated in SPOHC study (response rate: 39.8%). 71.1% were female, and 53.5% were under 31 years old. 38.4% were registered nurses, 35.8% were nurses in training, 14.5% were physicians and 10.7% were other healthcare professionals. 48.4% had more than five years of professional experience. On the SJT 56.6% of study participants reached high scores, indicating an expert safety performance. Together with descriptive statistics, the results of validity analysis (currently in progress) will be reported.

Discussion: This study demonstrates development, testing and validation of SJT for measuring safety performance of healthcare professionals. Most study participants achieved expert safety performance scores. This was especially apparent for infection prevention, communication, the areas that can be considered as strengths. The data also showed room for improvement in areas like patient identification and hygiene. Further, the results of validation analysis will be discussed.

Practical implications: SJT provide an alternative way to measure safety performance of healthcare professionals. The instrument offers insights into behaviour of professionals, into available strengths and possible limitations, in order to develop targeted steps for improving patient safety at the frontline.