Background: Patient Safety Culture and Patient Safety Climate (PSC) are different factors. PSC is the shared perception that is held within a hospital's area or unit at a specific moment in time. This measure is necessary for designing activities for promoting and improving safety. It must include the perception of all the agents involved, including future nurses throughout their patient safety education. Objectives: The aim was to adapt and validate a new version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS), targeted specifically at nursing students. It provides a new comprehensive and more complete measure of PSC that contributes to improving patient safety. Methods: Data were obtained from 654 undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students. PSC was tested using factor analyses and structural equation modeling. In order to facilitate the improvement of PSC, we examined differences in climate strength across different academic groups using the Rwg(j) and ICC measures of interrater agreement. Results: Factor Analyses confirmed a five-factor solution that explained between 52.45% and 54.75% of the variance. The model was found to have adequate fit χ 2 (5) = 14.333, p = 0.014 ; CFI = 0.99 ; RMSEA = 0.05. Cronbach's alphas for PSC were between 0.74 and 0.77. "Teamwork within units" was the highest rated dimension, and "Staffing" the lowest rated. Medium-to-high scores were obtained for PSC. The median of Rwg (j) was high in the five dimensions of the PSC survey, supporting the idea of shared climate perceptions (0.81-0.96) among undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students. Conclusions: HSOPS-NS is a useful and versatile tool for measuring the level and strength of PSC. It screens knowledge regarding patient safety in clinical practice placements and compares nursing students' perceptions of the strength of PSC. Weaknesses perceived in relation to PSC help implement changes in patient safety learning.

The purpose of this study was to develop a predictive model for perceived competence and to obtain an integrator evaluation of the nursing curriculum with measures of nursing self‐efficacy, general self‐efficacy, resilience, and stress among nursing students. A correlational study with nursing students (N = 265) from the degree in nursing was conducted. A factor analysis was used to test the construct validity of nursing self‐efficacy and perceived competence. The correlational and discriminant analyses evaluated the factors in the four academic levels of the degree (2016–2017) to identify the variables involved in the classification of the students in each level. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of nursing self‐efficacy and perceived competence revealed a statistically significant good fit and consistency. Nursing self‐efficacy, general self‐efficacy, resilience, and year of the degree course predicted 34% of perceived competence scores. The discriminant function of nursing self‐efficacy, perceived competence, and resilience classified 76% of participants in the first and last years of the degree. Nursing self‐efficacy, perceived competence, and resilience increased with academic level. They help chart nursing students' progress through the curriculum.

AimTo propose a predictive model of procedural and emotional stress in clinical placements while testing self‐efficacy as a possible mediator factor.DesignThe study used an exploratory correlational design.MethodA total of 334 nursing students completed the KEZKAK—stress in clinical practice, AG—general self‐efficacy and CEA—academic overload questionnaires, along with one about leadership. Sociodemographic information was also included.ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses and internal consistency reliabilities were satisfactory in all questionnaires. Procedural stress and emotional stress were confirmed by KEZKAK [χ2 (674) = 1,555.58, p = .001; χ2/df = 2.308, CFI = .90, IFI = 91, RMSEA = .06]. The structural equation method for procedural stress and emotional stress had an acceptable fit. They revealed that academic level influenced the perception of leadership and academic overload in both procedural stress and emotional stress. General self‐efficacy only mediated emotional stress. Hospital unit acted independently as a predictor of procedural stress.

No abstract