2021
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1119
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development and testing of the situational judgement test to measure safety performance of healthcare professionals: An explorative cross‐sectional study

Abstract: Adverse events, with an 8%-12% occurrence in all hospitalizations in European countries, have a huge impact on patient mortality and morbidity (Vries et al., 2008). In recent decades, especially since the publishing of the report "To err is human: building a safer health system" in 1998 (Kohn et al., 2000), the importance of safety skills, safety performance and safety culture have become clear and more evident

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(49 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The SPOHC survey results focus on the testing and validation of two instruments (a workplace health and safety instrument and situational judgement test) to measure the safety performance of HCP in Germany. Both instruments show acceptable psychometric properties, allowing new possibilities to measure the construct of safety performance [24,30].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SPOHC survey results focus on the testing and validation of two instruments (a workplace health and safety instrument and situational judgement test) to measure the safety performance of HCP in Germany. Both instruments show acceptable psychometric properties, allowing new possibilities to measure the construct of safety performance [24,30].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SJT is an additional choice for evaluating performance on an individual level (Heier et al, 2022). SJT is a technique made up of difficult work-related scenarios and many courses of action (Lievens & Motowidlo, 2016;Muck, 2013;Oostrom et al, 2015;Zibarras, et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%