Background The safety-and-quality movement is now two decades old. Errors persist despite best efforts, indicating that there are entrenched overt and perhaps less explicit barriers limiting the success of improvement efforts.
Objectives and hypotheses To examine the perspectives of five groups of healthcare workers (administrative staff, nurses, medical practitioners, allied health and managers) and to compare and contrast their descriptions of quality-and-safety activities within their organisation. Differences in perspectives can be an indicator of divergence in the conceptualisation of, and impetus for, quality-improvement strategies which are intended to engage healthcare professions and staff.
Design, setting and participants Study data were collected in a defined geographical healthcare jurisdiction in Australia, via individual and group interviews held across four service streams (aged care and rehabilitation; mental health; community health; and cancer services). Data were collected in 2008 and analysed, using data-mining software, in 2009.
Results Clear differences in the perspectives of professional groups were evident, suggesting variations in the perceptions of, and priorities for, quality and safety.
Conclusions The visual representation of quality and safety perspectives provides insights into the conceptual maps currently utilised by healthcare workers. Understanding the similarity and differences in these maps may enable more effective targeting of interprofessional improvement strategies.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding The research was supported under Australian Research Council's (ARC) Linkage Projects funding scheme (grant number LP0775514). We are also funded for research into patient safety via National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) programme grant 568612.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the University of New South Wales' Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel (HREA) (approval number 9_10_006) and ACT Health Ethics Committee (approval number ET.3/07.2740).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.