Table 3.
Descriptive statistics, results of the student’s t test and effect size comparing answers by nurses and physicians
| Psychosocial working conditions | Interpretation (0 = minimum value, 100 = maximum value) |
Mean (SD) (nurses = 564) |
Mean (SD) (physicians = 380) |
(df) t-value1 | dCohen |
| Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) | |||||
| Quantitative demands | high = negative | 66.5 (13.5) | 71.9 (13.9) | (942) -5.974* | 0.40 |
| Emotional demands | high = negative | 64.4 (18.3) | 64.6 (16.5) | (942) -.202 | 0.01 |
| Work-privacy-conflict | high = negative | 61.3 (24.4) | 68.7 (25.1) | (942) -4.497* | 0.30 |
| Influence at work | high = positive | 36.3 (17.3) | 38.8 (20.8) | (710) -2.006* | 0.13 |
| Degree of freedom at work | high = positive | 36.0 (15.9) | 46.2 (20.0) | (687) -8.373* | 0.58 |
| Possibilities for development | high = positive | 71.6 (15.7) | 79.6 (14.2) | (942) -8.032* | 0.53 |
| Meaning of work | high = positive | 77.7 (16.6) | 82.9 (16.1) | (942) -4.753* | 0.32 |
| Workplace commitment | high = positive | 48.4 (18.8) | 61.3 (19.2) | (942) -10.220* | 0.68 |
| Predictability | high = positive | 53.3 (16.4) | 52.5 (19.3) | (720) 0.710 | −0.05 |
| Role clarity | high = positive | 73.5 (14.5) | 72.5 (16.5) | (740) 1.027 | −0.07 |
| Role conflicts | high = negative | 50.6 (17.2) | 45.1 (18.4) | (942) 4.611* | −0.31 |
| Feedback | high = positive | 41.9 (21.0) | 41.0 (21.5) | (942) 0.632 | −0.04 |
| Social support | high = positive | 66.7 (17.0) | 64.2 (17.0) | (942) 2.169* | −0.15 |
| Social relations | high = positive | 45.0 (17.0) | 51.5 (15.1) | (874) -6.194* | 0.40 |
| Sense of community | high = positive | 77.8 (15.2) | 76.7 (15.1) | (942) 1.096 | −0.07 |
| Outcome scale – Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) | |||||
| Job satisfaction | high = positive | 67.5 (10.2) | 73.4 (12.0) | (942) -8.135* | 0.54 |
| Outcome scale – Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI, adapted client-related burnout) | |||||
| Patient related burnout | high = negative | 36.5 (17.6) | 28.0 (16.5) | (942) 7.464* | −0.50 |
| Leadership | Interpretation (0/1 = minimum value, 100/5 = maximum value) |
Mean (SD) (nurses = 543) |
Mean (SD) (physicians = 369) |
(df) t-value1 | dCohen |
| Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI short) | |||||
| Transformational leadership | 5 = positive | 3.1 (0.8) | 3.2 (0.8) | (910) -1.605 | 0.13 |
| Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) | |||||
| Quality of leadership | high = positive | 53.8 (22.7) | 49.2 (22.9) | (910) 3.031* | −0.20 |
| Patient safety climate | Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) |
Mean (SD) (nurses = 558) |
Mean (SD) (physicians = 373) |
(df) t-value1 | dCohen |
| Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D) | |||||
| Staffing | 5 = positive | 2.4 (0.8) | 2.8 (0.8) | (929) -7.721* | 0.50 |
| Organizational learning | 5 = positive | 3.0 (0.7) | 3.1 (0.7) | (762) -1.366 | 0.14 |
| Communication openness | 5 = positive | 3.7 (0.6) | 3.4 (0.7) | (758) 6.010* | −0.47 |
| Feedback & communication about error | 5 = positive | 3.4 (0.8) | 3.3 (0.9) | (929) 1.519 | −0.12 |
| Nonpunitive response to error | 5 = positive | 3.3 (0.8) | 3.5 (0.8) | (929) -3.746* | 0.25 |
| Teamwork within units | 5 = positive | 3.3 (0.6) | 3.4 (0.6) | (929) 1.326 | 0.17 |
| Teamwork across units | 5 = positive | 3.0 (0.6) | 3.1 (0.7) | (698) -3.316* | 0.16 |
| Handoffs & transitions | 5 = positive | 3.2 (0.6) | 2.9 (0.7) | (713) 5.702* | −0.47 |
| Supervisor/manager expectations | 5 = positive | 3.4 (0.7) | 3.3 (0.7) | (929) 1.020 | −0.14 |
| Management support for patient safety | 5 = positive | 2.6 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.8) | (929) -5.797* | 0.50 |
| Outcome scales – Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D) | |||||
| Frequency of event reported | 5 = positive | 3.0 (1.1) | 2.9 (0.9) | (874) 1.053 | −0.10 |
| Overall perceptions of patient safety | 5 = positive | 2.9 (0.7) | 3.3 (0.8) | (929) -7.782* | 0.54 |
| Patient safety grade | 1 = positive | 2.9 (0.8) | 2.6 (0.7) | (929) 7.456* | −0.39 |
| Safety grade in the medication process | 1 = positive | 3.0 (0.8) | 2.8 (0.7) | (831) 5.065* | −0.26 |
| Patient safety climate | Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) |
Mean (SD) (nurses = 543) |
Mean (SD) (physicians = 369) |
(df) t-value1 | dCohen |
| TWINS Patient Safety | |||||
| Supervisor support for patient safety | 5 = positive | 3.4 (0.8) | 3.5 (0.7) | (910) -1.996* | 0.13 |
| My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital | 5 = positive | 3.3 (0.9) | 3.3 (1.0) | (729) -0.865 | 0.00 |
| My direct supervisor focuses more on patient safety than a year ago | 5 = positive | 2.8 (0.9) | 2.8 (1.0) | (735) -0.27 | 0.00 |
| It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety | 5 = positive | 3.4 (0.9) | 3.5 (0.9) | (910) -1.509 | 0.11 |
| Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital | 5 = positive | 2.8 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.9) | (910) -4.188* | 0.36 |
| Hospital management focuses more on patient safety than a year ago | 5 = positive | 2.7 (0.9) | 2.8 (0.9) | (910) -2.758* | 0.12 |
| It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety | 5 = positive | 3.0 (1.0) | 3.2 (1.0) | (784) -3.698* | 0.20 |
| Do you have an individual influence on how well patient safety is implemented at the workplace | 1 = positive | 3.2 (0.9) | 2.9 (1.0) | (910) 4.558* | −0.32 |
| Occupational safety climate | Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) |
Mean (SD) (nurses = 543) |
Mean (SD) (physicians = 369) |
(df) t-value1 | dCohen |
| TWINS Occupational Safety | |||||
| Supervisor support for occupational safety | 5 = positive | 3.5 (0.8) | 3.4 (0.8) | (910) 1.050 | −0.13 |
| My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital | 5 = positive | 3.3 (0.9) | 3.2 (0.9) | (910) 0.869 | 0.00 |
| My direct supervisor focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago | 5 = positive | 2.8 (0.9) | 2.7 (0.9) | (910) 0.628 | −0.11 |
| It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety | 5 = positive | 3.3 (0.9) | 3.2 (1.0) | (910) 2.299* | −0.11 |
| Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital | 5 = positive | 2.9 (0.9) | 3.1 (0.9) | (910) -3.337* | 0.22 |
| Hospital management focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago | 5 = positive | 2.7 (0.9) | 2.8 (0.9) | (910) -1.936 | 0.11 |
| It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety | 5 = positive | 2.9 (0.9) | 3.1 (1.0) | (766) -2.720* | 0.21 |
| Do you have an individual influence on how well occupational safety is implemented at the workplace | 1 = positive | 3.3 (0.9) | 3.3 (1.0) | (910) .893 | 0.00 |
| Occupational safety climate | Interpretation (1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value) |
Mean (SD) (nurses = 560) |
Mean (SD) (physicians = 372) |
(df) t-value1 | dCohen |
| Outcome scales – self constructed indices | |||||
| Subjective assessment of specific protective measures (behaviour & regulations) related to infectious diseases | 1 = positive | 1.8 (0.6) | 1.8 (0.6) | (930) -1.132 | 0.00 |
| Subjective assessment of occupational safety measures initiated by the employer, related to own safety | 1 = positive | 1.7 (0.6) | 2.0 (0.6) | (930) -8.328* | 0.50 |
| Personal perception of the frequency of occupational risks | 5 = positive | 3.2 (0.8) | 3.5 (0.7) | (853) -5.608* | 0.39 |
Notes: 1p-value* ≤.05