Objectives: Despite increased emphasis on education and training for patient safety in medical schools, there is little known about factors influencing decision making regarding patient safety behaviors. This study examined the nature and magnitude of factors that may influence opinions around patient safety-related behaviors as a means of providing insights into how Australian doctors and medical students view these issues relative to members of the public.Methods: A national, multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional survey was conducted using responses to hypothetical patient safety scenarios involving the following: fabricating results, personal protective equipment, presenteeism, and reporting concerns.Australian enrolled medical students, medical doctors, and members of the public were surveyed.Participant responses were compared for the different contextual variables within the scenarios and the participants' demographic characteristics.Results: In total, 2602 medical student, 809 doctors, and 503 members of the Australian public participated. The 3 demographic groups had significantly differing opinions on many of the patient safety dilemmas. Doctors were more tolerant of medical students not reporting concerning behaviors and attending placements despite recent illness. Medical students' opinions frequently demonstrated a "transition effect," bridging between the doctors and publics' attitudes, consistent with professional identity formation.Conclusions: Opinions on the acceptability of medical students' patient safety-related behaviors were influenced by the demographics of the cohort and the contextual complexity of the scenario. Although the survey used hypothetical scenarios, doctors and medical students' opinions seem to be influenced by cognitive dissonances, biases, and heuristics, which may negatively affect patient safety.
Introduction
Despite increased emphasis on education and training for patient safety in medical schools, there is little known about factors influencing decision making regarding patient safety behaviours. This study examined the nature and magnitude of factors which may influence opinions around patient safety related behaviours as a means of providing insights into how Australian doctors and medical students view these issues relative to members of the public.
Methods
A national, multicentre, prospective, online cross sectional survey was conducted using responses to hypothetical clinical scenarios. Three cohorts were surveyed Australian enrolled medical students, medical doctors and members of the public.
Participant responses were compared for the different contextual variables within the scenarios and the participants demographic characteristics student, doctor, member of the public, gender and age (if public or doctors)/ seniority in the course (if a medical student).
Results
In total there were 2602 medical student participants, 809 doctors and 503 members of the Australian public. Medical doctors were more likely than other cohorts to have statistically significant differences in how they viewed the acceptability of patient safety related behaviours; doctors were more tolerant of medical students not reporting concerning behaviours. Medical students opinions frequently demonstrated a transition effect, bridging between the doctors and publics attitudes, consistent with professional identity formation.
Conclusions
Opinions on the acceptability of medical students patient safety related behaviours were influenced by the demographics of the cohort and the contextual complexity of the scenario. Although the survey used hypothetical scenarios, doctors and medical students opinions appear to be influenced by cognitive dissonances, biases and heuristics which may negatively affect patient safety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.