The Culture in Safety Culture:

Exploration of Patient Safety

Culture in Saudi Arabian Operating
Theatres

Fahad Dhafer Algahtani

Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Adelaide

2015
To my parents; Dhafer and Moneera

You made me who I am

Table of Contents

1.1. Saudi Arabian context ........................................................................................... 1

1.1.1. Saudi Arabia ................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2. Saudi culture ................................................................................................ 3
1.1.3. Saudi population .......................................................................................... 5
1.1.4. Health care system in Saudi Arabia ............................................................ 5
1.2. Aim and significance of the study ......................................................................... 8
1.3. Research questions ................................................................................................ 9
1.4. Thesis structure...................................................................................................... 9

2.1. Search strategy .................................................................................................... 11

2.2. Patient safety terminology ................................................................................... 11
2.3. Prevalence of adverse events worldwide............................................................. 13
2.4. Patient safety in operating theatres ...................................................................... 15
2.5. Strategic reduction of adverse events .................................................................. 16
2.6. Safety culture and safety climate......................................................................... 18
2.7. Organisational culture and climate ...................................................................... 24
2.8. Patient safety culture and climate ........................................................................ 27
2.9. Patient safety climate as a measurement of patient safety culture ...................... 29
2.10. Review of surveys ............................................................................................. 29
2.11. Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) development ........................................ 35
2.11.1. Teamwork climate ................................................................................... 36
2.11.2. Safety climate .......................................................................................... 38
2.11.3. Job satisfaction ........................................................................................ 38
2.11.4. Perception of management ...................................................................... 38
2.11.5. Stress recognition .................................................................................... 39
2.11.6. Working conditions ................................................................................. 39
2.11.7. Communication and collaboration ratings .............................................. 40
2.12. Patient safety in Saudi Arabia ........................................................................... 40
2.13. Summary ........................................................................................................... 43

3.1. Mixed methods approach .................................................................................... 44

ii
 3.1.1. Pragmatism and mixed methods research ................................................. 47
3.1.2. Patient safety and mixed methods research............................................... 50
3.2. Design .................................................................................................................. 51
3.2.1. Mixed methods designs ............................................................................. 51
3.2.2. Employed design ....................................................................................... 54
Interaction ............................................................................................ 55
Priority ................................................................................................. 55
Timing.................................................................................................. 56
Integration ............................................................................................ 56
3.3. Summary ............................................................................................................. 57

4.1. Quantitative method ............................................................................................ 58

4.1.1. Design........................................................................................................ 58
4.1.2. Advantages and disadvantages of self-administered questionnaires ......... 58
4.1.3. Tool development ...................................................................................... 59
4.1.4. Research questionnaire design .................................................................. 60
Demographic information .................................................................... 60
Patient safety climate ........................................................................... 60
Quality of communication ratings ....................................................... 61
Open-ended questions .......................................................................... 61
Overall patient safety ........................................................................... 62
Language used to answer ..................................................................... 62
Translation ........................................................................................... 62
Pilot test ............................................................................................... 64
4.1.5. Research population .................................................................................. 65
Sample and sampling ........................................................................... 65
4.1.6. Data collection........................................................................................... 66
4.1.7. Data analysis ............................................................................................. 66
4.1.8. Ethical considerations ............................................................................... 67
4.2. Qualitative method .............................................................................................. 68
4.2.1. Qualitative research ................................................................................... 68
Semi-structured interviews .................................................................. 69
4.2.2. Data collection........................................................................................... 71
Sample and sampling ........................................................................... 71
Ethical considerations .......................................................................... 73
Informed consent ................................................................................. 74
Confidentiality and privacy.................................................................. 74

iii
 4.2.3. Recruitment ............................................................................................... 75
4.2.4. Data analysis ............................................................................................. 76
Trustworthiness.................................................................................... 77
Credibility ............................................................................................ 78
Transferability...................................................................................... 78
Dependability ....................................................................................... 78
Conformability ..................................................................................... 79
4.3. Summary ............................................................................................................. 79

5.1. Response rate ....................................................................................................... 80

5.2. Participants’ demographic information ............................................................... 81
5.2.1. Patient safety overall grade ....................................................................... 84
5.2.2. Summary of demographic information ..................................................... 85
5.3. Patient safety scale .............................................................................................. 85
5.4. Psychometric analysis ......................................................................................... 86
5.4.1. Internal consistency ................................................................................... 86
5.4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis ..................................................................... 87
5.4.3. The new dimension: multicultural workplace ........................................... 90
5.5. Items and dimensions of the safety climate......................................................... 93
5.6. Inferential statistics for each dimension .............................................................. 97
5.6.1. Teamwork climate ..................................................................................... 97
5.6.2. Safety climate ............................................................................................ 99
5.6.3. Job satisfaction ........................................................................................ 101
5.6.4. Stress recognition .................................................................................... 103
5.6.5. Working conditions ................................................................................. 105
5.6.6. Perception of management ...................................................................... 106
5.6.7. Multicultural workplace .......................................................................... 108
5.7. Summary ........................................................................................................... 110
5.8. Quality of communication scale ........................................................................ 111
5.9. Results of open-ended questions ....................................................................... 121
5.9.1. Issues with health care professionals (employees) .................................. 122
Cultural differences’ effect on teamwork and communication .......... 123
Communicating and dealing with patients ......................................... 125
5.9.2. Issues with health care consumers (patients) .......................................... 126
Specific national cultural barriers ...................................................... 126
Health-related barriers ....................................................................... 128
5.9.3. Issues within the health system (hospitals) ............................................. 130

iv
 Working conditions............................................................................ 130
Policy and procedures ........................................................................ 132
Education for employees.................................................................... 133
5.9.4. Summary of open-ended results .............................................................. 134
5.10. Summary of results of first phase .................................................................... 135

6.1. Participants’ demographic information ............................................................. 137

6.2. Findings ............................................................................................................. 138
6.2.1. Culture’s influence on work environment ............................................... 141
Different backgrounds ....................................................................... 142
Local culture ...................................................................................... 143
Local culture influencing work environment ..................................... 146
Being a foreigner ............................................................................... 148
6.2.2. Safety culture and patient safety ............................................................. 150
Teamwork .......................................................................................... 151
Communicating within teams ............................................................ 153
Communicating with patients ............................................................ 156
Receiving respect ............................................................................... 159
Speaking up........................................................................................ 161
6.2.3. Conflict in theatres .................................................................................. 162
Conflicts affecting professional ......................................................... 162
Conflicts affecting patient safety ....................................................... 164
Sources of conflicts ............................................................................ 165
Handling effects of conflicts .............................................................. 168
Solving versus resolving .................................................................... 170
6.3. Summary ........................................................................................................... 171

7.1. Culture and safety culture.................................................................................. 174

7.1.1. Patients’ cultural background and patient safety..................................... 174
7.1.2. Employees’ cultural background and patient safety ............................... 178
7.1.3. Multicultural workplace dimension ........................................................ 179
7.1.4. Communication ....................................................................................... 180
7.1.5. Gender and cultural background ............................................................. 182
7.1.6. Manifestation of the influence of culture on safety culture .................... 184
7.2. Adaptation of SAQ in the Saudi context ........................................................... 188
7.2.1. Composite scale reliability ...................................................................... 189
7.2.2. SAQ benchmarking ................................................................................. 190

v
 Teamwork climate ............................................................................. 195
Safety climate .................................................................................... 195
Job satisfaction................................................................................... 196
Stress recognition ............................................................................... 196
Working condition ............................................................................. 197
Perception of management ................................................................. 197
7.3. Summary ........................................................................................................... 198

8.1. Summary of this study ....................................................................................... 199

8.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................. 200
8.3. Strengths and limitations ................................................................................... 202
8.4. Future research .................................................................................................. 204

8.5. Appendix 1: Questionnaire ................................................................................ 231

8.6. Appendix 2(1): Ethics 1 .................................................................................... 236
8.7. Appendix 2(2): Ethics 2 .................................................................................... 238
8.8. Appendix 2(3): Ethics 3 .................................................................................... 242
8.9. Appendix 2(4): Ethics 4 .................................................................................... 246
8.10. Appendix 3: Ethics phase II ............................................................................ 247
8.12. Appendix 4: Interview questions’ guide ......................................................... 251

vi
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Reviews of the survey instruments ..................................................................... 34
Table 4.1: Overview of participating sites ........................................................................... 65
Table 5.1: Response rate by site and profession .................................................................. 80
Table 5.2: Summary of key demographic information classified by respondents’
professions ........................................................................................................ 83
Table 5.3: Number (and percentage) of respondents’ ratings of overall patient safety
based on profession ........................................................................................... 85
Table 5.4: Alpha correlation for each dimension ................................................................ 87
Table 5.5: Regression weight estimates ............................................................................... 88
Table 5.6: Correlations among dimensions ......................................................................... 88
Table 5.7: The new items tested for dimensionality ............................................................ 90
Table 5.8: Pattern and structure matrix for PCA with oblimin rotation for two factors
in the new dimension ........................................................................................ 91
Table 5.9: Correlation between multicultural workplace dimension and other
dimensions ........................................................................................................ 92
Table 5.10: New dimension’s items and other new items ................................................... 93
Table 5.11: Original scale items .......................................................................................... 95
Table 5.12: Univariable results for teamwork climate dimension ....................................... 98
Table 5.13: Final regression model for teamwork climate dimension ................................ 99
Table 5.14: Univariable results for safety climate dimension ........................................... 100
Table 5.15: Final regression model for safety climate dimension ..................................... 101
Table 5.16: Univariable results for job satisfaction dimension ......................................... 102
Table 5.17: Final regression model for job satisfaction dimension ................................... 102
Table 5.18: Univariable results for stress recognition dimension ..................................... 104
Table 5.19: Final regression model for stress recognition dimension ............................... 104
Table 5.20: Univariable results for working conditions dimension................................... 105
Table 5.21: Final regression model for working conditions dimension ............................ 106
Table 5.22: Univariable results for perception of management dimension ....................... 107
Table 5.23: Final regression model for the perception of management dimension ........... 108
Table 5.24: Univariable results for multicultural workplace dimension ........................... 109
Table 5.25: Final regression model for multicultural workplace dimension ..................... 109
Table 5.26: Significant independent variable predictors of each dimension ..................... 110
Table 5.27: Mean rating each group received .................................................................... 112
Table 5.28: Mean rating given by each group of professionals (in left column) to other
groups .............................................................................................................. 113
Table 5.29: Mean rating each group received from other groups, including and
excluding ratings from their peer professionals from the same group ............ 114

vii
Table 5.30: Pearson’s correlation between intra-profession rating and ratings of all
professional groups ......................................................................................... 115
Table 5.31: Univariable analysis for rating received by surgeons ..................................... 116
Table 5.32: Multiple regression results for ratings received by surgeons ......................... 116
Table 5.33: Univariable analysis for rating received by anaesthetists ............................... 117
Table 5.34: Multiple regression results for ratings received by anaesthetists ................... 117
Table 5.35: Univariable analysis for rating received by nurses ......................................... 118
Table 5.36: Multiple regression results for ratings received by nurses ............................. 119
Table 5.37: Univariable analysis for rating received by anaesthesia technicians .............. 120
Table 5.38: Multiple regression results for ratings received by anaesthesia technicians .. 120
Table 5.39: Themes and sub-themes from analysis of open-ended responses .................. 122
Table 6.1: Themes, sub-themes and their illustrations ...................................................... 140
Table 7.1: Summary of international studies reporting SAQ results ................................. 193

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Saudi Arabian Map (Operation World, 2014) ........................................................ 2
Figure 2: Three levels of mental programming (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 6). ..................... 20
Figure 3: Schein's different categories of culture mapped to Hofstede et al.’s mental
programming levels .......................................................................................... 21
Figure 4: Three basic mixed methods designs (Creswell, 2014, p. 220) ............................. 54
Figure 5: Sequence and weight of methods used in the current study employing
explanatory sequential mixed methods design. ................................................ 56
Figure 6: Comparison of the number of respondents in each tenure and experience
group ................................................................................................................. 84
Figure 7: Scree plot showing two dimensions ..................................................................... 91
Figure 8: Percentages of positive scores across the six operating theatre departments ....... 96
Figure 9: Comparison of means on each dimension from international settings ............... 194

ix
Abstract
Surgical patients are highly susceptible to preventable harm in health systems that

tolerate inadequate patient safety: the World Health Organization recognises that half of

preventable adverse events happen in surgical care. Each year, seven million surgical

patients are estimated to suffer serious complications from adverse events and up to one

million die. Improving safety culture and non-technical skills can reduce adverse events

and improve patient safety. This study explores safety culture in operating theatres in Saudi

Arabia, where many employees work in an environment that is radically different from

their own, in a language that they know imperfectly. It targets cultural differences and their

relevance to safety culture dimensions, including teamwork, communication, job

satisfaction, stress recognition, working conditions, and perceptions of management.

The concept of safety culture is complex, and to achieve sufficient breadth and

depth this study employs a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. All health care

professionals working in operating theatres in the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health

hospitals in Riyadh City were surveyed using the internationally validated Safety Attitudes

Questionnaire, administered in both English and Arabic. Items pertaining to local culture

were added to assist in measuring cultural factors related to patient safety. Furthermore,

twenty semi-structured interviews with non-Arabic-speaking female nurses were also

conducted.

Returned surveys (n = 649; 60.8 % response rate) were subjected to reliability and

validity tests. Cronbach’s alpha values for each dimension ranged between 0.71 and 0.82,

except for the perception of management dimension (0.44). Confirmatory factor analysis

showed that all dimensions except perception of management had good psychometric

properties, indicating the tool’s applicability to Saudi Arabian context. Respondents’ mean

x
perceptions ranged between 3.5 and 4 out of 5 for each dimension, which is comparable to

similar studies in different international settings. Along with revealing significant

differences between sites, analysis indicates that nurses, younger professionals, females

and non-Arabic speaking professionals have significantly lower favourable perceptions of

the dimensions under investigation, and that nurses rate their quality of communication

with other professionals significantly lower than the ratings they received from them.

Cultural background, including language, influences perceptions of the safety culture.

Communication, cultural background, and gender are found to comprise a new

patient safety dimension, multicultural workplace. This dimension (α = 0.79; = 3.6; SD =

0.96) has strong, positive correlations with other valid dimensions except stress

recognition. Site, profession, and gender are significant predictors of this new dimension.

Both the open-ended questions and the semi-structured interviews reveal culture as

an important factor, influencing several aspects of safety culture. Many issues were related

to the concept of a multicultural workplace, and the strong correlation of this with other

dimensions of safety climate indicates its relevance and importance to the safety culture.

Nurses, of whom the majority were female and non-Arabic speaking, had significantly

lower perceptions of safety culture than other respondents. The influence of context,

gender, cultural background and language on safety culture is evident.

Cultural integration, initiated in classes about local culture and language, is

recommended to bridge gaps between local and multinational workforces.

Recommendations of enhancement to teamwork, communication, equity of team members

and conflict resolution should provide a better, safer environment for hospital staff and

patients if implemented.

xi
Declaration
I certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award

of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best

of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by

another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. In addition, I certify

that no part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission for any other degree or

diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval of the

University of Adelaide and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the

joint-award of this degree.

I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library,

being made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright

Act 1968.

I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on

the web, via the University’s digital research repository, the Library catalogue and also

through web search engines, unless permission has been granted by the University to

restrict access for a period of time.

Sign

Date

xii
Acknowledgements
The work in this thesis is a summary of the journey I undertook a few years ago,

and from which I have learnt so much. I would not have been able to reach my destination

without the contribution of significant people in my life.

I would like to acknowledge the continuous support I received from my parents;

your words and actions inspired me before and throughout this journey. I also acknowledge

the support and toleration of my busyness from my wife Mashael; your support,

understanding and belief in me got me through this journey and more. The patience of my

sons, Bader and Talal, meant so much: daddy is free now to pay for previous days. My

brothers and sisters: your help and support eased so many difficulties. I also acknowledge

the contribution of my friend and colleague Mr. Mohammad Alboliteeh for his support; the

long regular discussions were worth publishing. I also would like to acknowledge family,

friends and colleagues who had helped in various ways to keep me going.

Professionally, I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the guidance and

support from my main supervisor, Professor Alison Kitson, and my co-supervisor Dr Tim

Schultz. Your contribution has been invaluable. You were generous with your time, effort,

knowledge and support, and made this journey a blessing. You had me longing for our next

meeting as soon as I walk out of the last one. This journey was an apprenticeship of which

I experienced first-hand professionalism, effective teamwork, proper communication and

invaluable guidance and training.

I would like to extend my acknowledgement for the statistical help I received from

Dr Nancy Briggs: you made numbers meaningful; and to my copy editors Dr Margaret

Johnson and Ms Valerie Williams whose eyes picked what I could not see. The

contribution of the men and women working in operating theatres who spent time filling

xiii
out survey forms and talking to me in the interviews, is highly appreciated; I hope this

study benefits you and your patients. Those people who facilitated data collection from

different sites, thank you. Experts who helped in the development of the tool, your

comments were sincerely appreciated.

xiv
Glossary

ACSNI Advisory Committee on Safety of Nuclear Installations

ACSQHC Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
ANOVA Analysis of variance
CFI Comparative fit index
CDSI Central Department of Statistics and Information (Saudi Arabia)
DON Director of nursing
FMAQ Flight Management Attitudes Questionnaire
HSC Hospital Safety Climate (survey)
HSD Honest significant difference (Tukey’s HSD test)
HSOPSC Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ICPS International Classification of Patient Safety
ICU Intensive care unit
IOM Institute of Medicine (US)
KMO Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (measure)
Makkah also known as Mecca
MOH Ministry of Health (Saudi Arabia)
MSI Modified Stanford Patient Safety Culture Survey Instrument
OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
OR Operating room
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PIS participant information sheet
PSCHO Patient Safety Culture in Health Organisations (survey)
RMSEA root mean square error of approximation
SAQ Safety Attitude Questionnaire
SCS Safety Climate Survey
SD standard deviation
SRMR standardised root mean square residual
TLI Tucker–Lewis index
UK United Kingdom
USA/US United States of America
WHO World Health Organization

xv
Chapter 1: Introduction
In spite of the ancient origins of the maxim “above all, do no harm”, (Smith, 2005),

it is still relevant in the modern age. This aphorism, applied to medical and nursing

practice, prioritises patient safety over potentially risky treatments and may lead a health

care professional to decide not to conduct a certain form of treatment or, indeed, not to

conduct any treatment. Florence Nightingale (1863, p. iii) acknowledged the relevance of

patient protection to the health system in general by stating that “it may seem a strange

principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a Hospital that it should do the sick

no harm”. These axioms are constant reminders of the risks imposed by health care to

patients and the potential for adverse outcomes—that is, harm resulting from the health

care that patients receive rather than from their underlying illness or disease.

This study investigates patient safety culture in operating theatres in Ministry of

Health (MOH) hospitals in Riyadh, the capital city of Saudi Arabia. It employs a mixed

methods approach to achieve breadth and depth in the understanding of issues impacting

on patient safety. This chapter introduces the study by exploring and presenting the

context. It states the primary research aim, its significance and its main questions, and

outlines the thesis structure.

1.1. Saudi Arabian context

1.1.1. Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia occupies more than two million square kilometres of the Arabian

Peninsula in the Middle East (Central Department of Statistics and Information [CDSI],

2013). It shares borders with eight countries and has two water frontiers: the Red Sea in the

west and the Arabian Gulf in the east (Figure 1). It is a Monarchy in which the King is also

Introduction 1
the Prime Minister. Managerially, it is divided into 13 regions with 118 governorates

(CDSI, 2013). Saudi Arabia has gained international significance for two main reasons.

Firstly, two Muslim holy places, Makkah (Mecca) and Almadinah Almunwarah, are

located in Saudi Arabia, giving the area a spiritual and international influence that has

lasted for more than 14 centuries (Mufti, 2000). Secondly, the discovery of oil in

commercial quantities in 1938 has given the country great influence in the modern world

(Mufti, 2000). Saudi Arabia, as an establishing member of the Organization of Petroleum

Exporting Countries (OPEC), is the largest oil exporter, and has the second largest proven

oil reserve in the world (OPEC, 2014). In 2013, oil revenues made up more than 90% of

Saudi Arabia’s financial budget of more than a trillion Saudi riyal (over US$300 billion)

(Ministry of Finance, 2013). World Health Organization (WHO) (2013) claims that the

significant international influence of oil has allowed the country to improve the living

standards of its people. Despite dramatic change in the conditions of the people and the

country, less noticeable change has occurred at the cultural level as discussed in the

following sub-heading.

Figure 1: Saudi Arabian Map (Operation World, 2014)

Introduction 2
 1.1.2. Saudi culture
Historically, the nation is an amalgamation of several self-autonomous tribal areas,

which were unified into one country in 1932 (Mufti, 2000). Despite Saudi Arabia being a

fairly young country, its people have a culture that has lasted for thousands of years.

Common cultures shared by members of a certain tribe or region (Gallagher & Searle,

1985) usually develop and are refined over several centuries before the country becomes

unified.

Similarities and differences existed within the traditional tribal cultures. Several

factors played a major role in their development and modification; however, geographical

location and religion were deemed to be the two most important (Gallagher & Searle,

1985; Searle & Gallagher, 1983). The diverse geography of Saudi Arabia contributed to

widening differences between its peoples, but religion has helped create commonalities

that unify it along with these different tribal cultures being part of the general Arabic

Culture. The influences of these factors on micro-level cultures were particularly important

prior to the unification of the country (i.e., before the beginning of the 20th century).

The geography of a country influences people and their culture in different ways.

Weather, type of soil, and sources of water and food are examples of the influence of

geography on certain cultures (Crang, 2013). In addition, the geographical location of

tribes in Saudi Arabia influenced their cultures differently, and is still evident in

differences between cultures in the western parts of the country to those in the central

regions (Bjerke & Al-Meer, 1993). Makkah, the holy place, is located in the western part

of the country, and that region has long been influenced by constant exposure to visitors

and pilgrims from all over the world. In contrast, people from the central regions rarely see

anybody other than people from their tribe or neighbouring tribes, resulting in more

conservative cultures (Searle & Gallagher, 1983; Vogel, 2000). Religion, that is, Islam, has

played an important role in shaping the Saudi culture (Gallagher & Searle, 1985).

Introduction 3
 Since the unification of the country, a unified Saudi culture has emerged that has

been shaped by different factors. Most importantly, Saudi people and their culture have

been changed by the wealth generated since the discovery of oil in 1938 (Gallagher &

Searle, 1985; WHO, 2013). It resulted in free education (all levels including tertiary) and

health and no taxes (Luna, 1998). This changed all aspects of life for the Saudi people.

Sudden wealth generated from large export of oil, lack of skilled people due to recent

background of illiteracy and the resilience of folk beliefs against modernisation result in

the dependence on the skills of expatriate workers (in all aspects of modern life including

the provision of modern medicine) who arrived in large numbers (Gallagher & Searle,

1985; Mufti, 2000). Despite increases in the numbers of educated and skilled locals, more

than one-third of the population, which is more than half of the working population, is

made up of people from different nationalities (CDSI, 2013).

Although the noticeable modernisation and industrialisation of Saudi Arabia

imposed radical changes to lives of its people, the society remained traditionally oriented

(Luna, 1998). One obvious character is the domination of gender segregation, where

unrelated men and women are not supposed to mingle with each other beyond what was

considered socially necessary (AlMunajjed, 1997), on all aspects of Saudi life. Gender-

based schools, colleges, work places and even banks (gender-singularity is enforced) were

created in response to public demand (Aldossary, While, & Barriball, 2008; AlMunajjed,

1997; Mackey, 2002). Examples of this separation were women teaching girls in female-

only schools and colleges, or working in female-only branches of banks and government

sectors that served only women, while males worked and taught in male-only schools and

work places.

Health care institutions were the only exception to this separation because of the

need for qualified health care workers to work together to treat patients regardless of

gender (Al-Shahri, 2002). Despite hospitals being open to all, different wards were

Introduction 4
allocated to each gender, and separate coffee rooms were provided for male and female

staff. Gender separation was evident in all aspects of Saudi Arabian culture.

1.1.3. Saudi population

One of the main challenges in Saudi Arabia—for the government in general and the

health system specifically—has been its rapid population growth (Walston, Al-Omar, &

Al-Mutari, 2010). In 1974 the population was just over seven million; by 2013 it had

reached 30 million (CDSI, 2013). The population is not evenly distributed, with more than

half located in only two of the 13 regions in the country, Riyadh and Makkah (CDSI,

2013). This is no surprise given that Makkah is the religious capital and Riyadh the

administrative capital. Riyadh is the most populous city in Saudi Arabia by far, with a

population of about six million, followed by Jeddah (part of the Makkah region) with about

four million and Makkah city with about two million (CDSI, 2013). In addition to the

reliance on expatriate health care workers, both the rapid population growth and the

unbalanced population density have been major challenges for the health care system in the

country.

1.1.4. Health care system in Saudi Arabia

Historically, people depended on traditional and spiritual medicine as their health

care system. They used various herbs and different scripts from the holy Quran for their

healings. They also used cautery (Khan & Khan, 2000): this involved traditional healers

deliberately inducing burns using thin hot rods on certain areas of the patient’s body to

invoke healing. This method as well as other traditional medicine are still in use and highly

regarded as a healing practice (Abdullah, 1993; Malone & Al Gannass, 2012; Qureshi, Al-

Amri, Abdelgadir, & El-Haraka, 1998).

The country established a Health Department in 1926 as the first form of organised

health service (Mufti, 2000). However, real improvement was only achieved after the

Introduction 5
establishment of the Ministry of Health (MOH) in 1954 (Al-Mazrou, Khoja, & Rao, 1995).

Currently Saudi Arabia’s health care system is divided into three sectors: the MOH, other

governmental health sectors (e.g., military hospitals and university hospitals) and the

private sector. Most health services in Saudi Arabia are provided by the MOH, which

provides 59.5% of all beds in the country, followed by the private sector (21.2%) and the

other governmental sectors (19.3%) (MOH, 2012). The MOH provides health services to

the general public; other governmental health sectors serve particular groups of the

population. For example, military hospitals are funded and run by the Ministry of Defence

and Aviation and provide health services only to military personnel and their families.

English was adopted as the formal language in health care facilities for two reasons

(Brown & Busman, 2003; Luna, 1998; Tumulty, 2001; Walston et al., 2010). The first was

that the health system was built on the principles of Western medicine, with no

accommodation for any part of traditional medicine. In spite of modern medicine being

practiced and recognised internationally (Asuni, 1979), it was new practice for the

traditional Saudi Arabian people (Abdullah, 1993). The second was that the system was

dependent on expatriate health care workers, most of whom did not speak Arabic, the local

language. Establishing a totally new practice of medicine provided by people from other

cultures who spoke strange languages created some resistance among local patients,

although it eased over time as the system progressed and proved successful.

Saudi Arabia’s health care system has been challenged by the lack of its own health

care workforce. According to the latest MOH statistics (MOH, 2012), approximately three-

quarters of the doctors and nurses in the Saudi Arabian health system are of other

nationalities, that is expatriates – defined as people living or working in countries other

than where they were raised (Vance, 2005). This problem is exacerbated by their short

tenure—around two years on average in Saudi Arabia (Walston et al., 2010). Such a

transitional workforce may have a negative impact on the safety and quality of health care

Introduction 6
provided. In addition, communication within such a multicultural and transitional

workforce could, in theory, be sub-optimal, thereby threatening patient safety.

An arising issue that may add to the magnitude of the health care worker problem is

the massive increase in both the number of health education graduates and new health care

facilities. Since 2006 the number of health education colleges and universities has

increased more than fivefold. During this same time the number of hospital beds has

increased steadily, either in new health institutions or by increasing the capacity of

established institutions. The deputy health minister announced that the number of beds of

in Saudi Arabia (beds in the country in 2013 = 62,000; MOH beds = 38,000) would be

doubled (beds in the country = 120,000; MOH beds = 73,000) by the end of 2018

(Alothman, 2013; MOH, 2014). According to MOH statistics, in 2012 Saudi Arabia

employed 303,578 health care workers, including 211,219 physicians and nurses; Saudi

physicians and nurses constituted only 32.1% (n = 67,847) of this number (MOH, 2012).

Given this situation, the Saudi health system will continue to rely heavily on international

health care workers for an extended period of time, despite the increase in the number of

Saudi graduates. Such a massive increase in the health system’s capacity will necessitate

the recruitment of a large number of health care workers.

Training for international health care workers, in the nature of the Saudi work

environment and patients, and the newly graduating local health care workers, to get the

required skills, pose challenges to the Saudi health system. The massive number of trainees

could affect health care standards and patient safety when the balance between experienced

and inexperienced health care workers is disturbed over a short period of time. Every

organisation has a certain capacity to take on new employees and train them, but exceeding

that threshold could result in an environment that is vulnerable to errors (Fero, Witsberger,

Wesmiller, Zullo, & Hoffman, 2009). The current study will investigate patient safety

within this radically changing health system.

Introduction 7
1.2. Aim and significance of the study
As surgical skills are important in the surgical field, non-technical skills are also

important for patient safety and wellbeing. Several strategies have been shown to improve

patient safety in health care facilities, one of which is to assess and improve safety culture

(Guldenmund, 2000; Kohn, Corrigan, & Donaldson, 2000; Leape, 2008). However, no

improvements can be made without a thorough understanding of the important contextual

issues related to safety culture (Cooper, 2000; Guldenmund, 2000; Pronovost & Sexton,

2005). This study aims to inform the development of patient safety improvement strategies

in the context of Saudi Arabian operating theatres in Saudi Arabia by investigating the

safety culture, using mixed methods approach. Operating theatres were considered one of

the highest error-prone environments with high volume of significant complications and

lethal consequences internationally (Leape, 1994; WHO, 2009). The most vulnerable areas

usually benefit the most from investigations and improvement efforts (Schwendimann,

Zimmermann, Küng, Ausserhofer, & Sexton, 2013).

Issues particular to improving patient safety include how health care professionals

from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds work and communicate with each other

and their (mainly Saudi) patients, what factors impact on patient safety culture and climate,

and how the health system deals with its workforce. By understanding the important

aspects of safety culture in a specific context such as in operating theatres, informed

recommendations can be made that, if adopted, should contribute to a better safety culture

and, ultimately, better patient safety.

This study is significant as it establishes a baseline or benchmark for the safety

culture and patient safety in operating theatres in Saudi Arabia. The recommendations

generated in this study may be applicable to countries with similar cultures, such as the

Gulf countries, and even to countries with distinctly different cultures that have parallel

Introduction 8
situations in their health systems, particularly of health care workers who speak a language

different to that of their patients.

1.3. Research questions

This thesis seeks to answer four main questions, with sub-questions used to focus

the answers:

1- What is the current safety climate in the operating theatres in the MOH’s hospitals

in Riyadh?

a. What are the main characteristics of the perioperative teams and do they

differ between hospitals?

b. What characteristics of individuals are related to perceptions of safety

culture?

c. How valid and reliable is a Western-based instrument in describing the

Saudi Arabian context?

2- How do healthcare professionals rate the quality of communication with members

of other surgical disciplines?

3- What, if any, areas of patient safety can be improved in the operating theatres?

4- What aspects of Saudi local culture could have an influence on patient safety?

1.4. Thesis structure

Investigating patient safety in Saudi Arabian operating theatres using a mixed

methods approach, this thesis is reported in eight chapters divided as follows:

This first chapter, Introduction, has provided an introduction to the study,

highlighting the importance of studying patient safety in operating theatres, especially in

Saudi Arabia. It has also provided background about Saudi Arabia and its culture and

people, the health system and the health workforce. It has outlined the research aims and

significance, research questions and the thesis structure.

Introduction 9
 Chapter 2, Literature Review, presents a review of the literature relevant to the

research topic, including a critical evaluation of relevant studies.

Chapter 3, Methodology, presents the methodological background and the

methodology adopted for the current study.

Chapter 4, Methods, presents both methods used for the data collection and analysis

of the survey and interviews.

Chapter 5, Survey Results, and Chapter 6, Interview Findings, both present the

results and findings of the survey and the interviews.

Chapter 7, Discussion, presents the integration and discussion of both results.

Chapter 8, Conclusion, summarises the study and presents the recommendations.

Introduction 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
We cannot change the human condition, but we can change the conditions under

which humans work – Reason, 2000, p. 769.

The previous chapter introduced the research problem and context. This chapter

follows by defining the topic’s terminology and providing the historical development of

patient safety. It presents a review of the relevant literature on different aspects of patient

safety, including strategies used to improve patient safety internationally and in Saudi

Arabia. This study reviewed and evaluated previous research critically to determine

important foundations in safety science in general and, more specifically, in patient safety.

2.1. Search strategy

An extensive search was conducted to collate the literature relevant to the research

topic. This search used combinations of the following keywords: patient safety, safety,

culture, safety culture, safety climate, non-technical skills, incident, sentinel, iatrogenic,

adverse events/incidents, near miss, error, human error, system error, hospitals, health care,

healthcare, operating theatre/room/department, perioperative and Saudi Arabia. The search

was conducted using online search engines including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus,

Web of Science and CINAHL. The search was limited to English and Arabic language and

was conducted throughout the study (from early 2011) until mid-2014.

2.2. Patient safety terminology

Patient safety is a term used to indicate the developing science of preventing harm

to patients. Patient safety is diversely defined and conceptualised throughout the literature.

This recognised diversity has initiated efforts to unify and classify patient safety definitions

Literature Review 11
and conceptualisation (Donaldson, 2009; Runciman et al., 2008; Runciman et al., 2009;

Sherman et al., 2009; Thomson et al., 2009; World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009). The

WHO World Alliance for Patient Safety has led the way, developing the International

Classification of Patient Safety (ICPS) (Runciman et al., 2009). One of the main aspects of

the ICPS’s final technical report is the provision of definitions of patient safety

terminology (World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009).

Patient safety is defined as “the reduction of risk of unnecessary harm associated

with healthcare to an acceptable minimum” (World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009, p.

15). Health care-associated harm is then defined as “harm arising from or associated with

plans or actions taken during the provision of healthcare, rather than an underlying disease

or injury” (World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009, p. 15). This definition narrows the

focus of patient safety efforts to preventable risks. The debatable “acceptable minimum” is

further referred to as “the collective notion of given current knowledge, resources available

and the context in which care was delivered weighed against the risk of non-treatment or

other treatment” (World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009, p. 15). These explanations

highlight the importance of context in achieving patient safety.

The presence of risk in health care settings is acknowledged and it is targeted to be

reduced. The risks that are referred to in patient safety literature can lead to an incident,

defined as “an event or circumstance that could have resulted, or did result, in unnecessary

harm to a patient” (World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009, p. 15). Incidents in which

there is the possibility of harm to patients are commonly known as near misses, while those

that result in actual harm are known as adverse events. Patient safety is more concerned

with preventable incidents in which unnecessary harm occur. It has been estimated that

about half of the patient safety incidents in health care are preventable (de Vries,

Ramrattan, Smorenburg, Gouma, & Boermeester, 2008; WHO, 2009).

Literature Review 12
 Preventable incidents are linked to errors, violations, abuse and deliberate unsafe

acts (World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009, p. 16). Errors, probably due to their

unintentionality, receive the most attention in patient safety assessment and interventions.

The landmark report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) states that “ensuring patient safety

involves the establishment of operational systems and processes that minimize the

likelihood of errors and maximize the likelihood of intercepting them when they occur”

(Kohn et al., 2000, p. 217). An error is defined as the “failure to carry out a planned action

as intended or application of an incorrect plan” (World Alliance for Patient Safety, 2009, p.

22). In the medical context, an error can occur when planning or conducting treatment,

either by taking the wrong action or failing to carry out the right action. Such errors take

different forms, including diagnostic errors, treatment errors, medication errors, equipment

failure and preventive errors (Kohn et al., 2000). Fewer errors would result in fewer

adverse events that, in turn, would mean less harm to patients.

2.3. Prevalence of adverse events worldwide

In the United States of America (USA), adverse events result in an estimated

44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually: more than half of them (58%) are preventable (Kohn et

al., 2000). In addition to often having lethal consequences, adverse events result in serious

injuries and disabilities. Adverse events are estimated to cost the US economy about

US$29 billion annually (Kohn et al., 2000). More recently it has been estimated that

between 210,000 and 400,000 preventable deaths occur in US hospitals each year (James,

2013). Serious, but not lethal, adverse events are estimated to be 10 to 20 times higher than

the lethal figures: that is, between two and four million serious adverse events annually

(James, 2013).

In Australia it has been estimated that 16.6% of hospital admissions experience

adverse events, with about half (51%) having a high likelihood that they could have been

Literature Review 13
prevented (Wilson et al., 1995). Such adverse events cost the country more than an

estimated A$2.2 billion annually (Runciman & Moller, 2001). Surgical adverse events are

estimated at 21.9% of hospital admissions, with 48% highly preventable (Kable, Gibberd,

& Spigelman, 2002). Similar results have been reported by the Department of Health in the

United Kingdom which found that one in 10 admissions (10%) results in an adverse event,

cumulatively costing the health system more than £2 billion annually (Vincent, Neale, &

Woloshynowych, 2001). Baker and colleagues (2004) report that 7.5% of admissions in

Canadian hospitals are associated with adverse events, more than a third of them (36.9%)

preventable.

On a broader scale, de Vries et al. (2008) indicate in their systematic review that the

median global average rate of adverse events was 9.2% of hospital admissions. In other

words, almost one in 10 admitted patients suffers an adverse event. These can result from

unpreventable results such as complications inherent in a disease or procedure, but de

Vries and colleagues (2008) indicates that almost half (43.5%) of such events are

preventable. Their review included developed countries with health systems considered

superior to those of developing countries for several reasons, including higher budgets,

more research, more educated staff and more resources.

Wilson and colleagues’ (2012) report of eight developing countries, Egypt, Jordan,

Kenya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, South Africa and Yemen, found that a diverse range of

adverse events occur at rates ranging from 2.5% to 18.4%, an average annual rate of 8.2%.

Interestingly, 83% of those adverse events were claimed to be preventable and 30% were

associated with death. Statistics from Saudi Arabia about adverse events have not been

located.

Literature Review 14
2.4. Patient safety in operating theatres
Patient safety is sometimes investigated at the hospital level, which is not sensitive

to differences in departmental cultures. Pronovost and Sexton’s (2005) study of more than

500 hospitals found that department-focused investigations and interventions, rather than

hospital-imposed standards, improve safety and teamwork climate. Routine work in the

wards differs from that in critical care units: it is also assumed that cultures in different

clinical places are different. Solving any problem requires a thorough understanding of the

problem and the settings at unit level, and the problem of patient safety cannot be solved

without fully understanding health care settings and appreciating the differences between

departments.

Globally, the operating theatre department is one of the busiest places in the health

care system. It has been estimated that approximately 234 million major surgeries are

undertaken every year (Weiser et al., 2008): in other words, one in every 25 human beings

undergoes major surgery annually (WHO, 2009). Leape (1994) asserts that the operating

theatre department is the most common place for errors to occur in hospitals. On a global

scale, the World Health Organization (2009) has concluded that about half of all known

adverse events in health care occur during surgical care. The WHO also estimates that

every year seven million patients suffer significant complications, and that an estimated

one million die either during or immediately after surgery.

The WHO (2009) presents four challenges to improving surgical safety in operating

theatre departments. First, surgical safety is not recognised as the significant public health

concern that it is. Second, there is a lack of basic, routine data that could be used to

diagnose and improve safety in operating theatre departments. Third, the lack of adherence

to existing safety policy and procedures creates problems. The fourth challenge is the

complexity of the work conducted in operating theatre departments. The operating

department is usually compared to high-risk organisations in other fields because of the

Literature Review 15
complexity of its work (Mazzocco et al., 2009). The treatment protocol, high-risk

environment, high level of technology, accurate coordination and changing conditions all

contribute to the complexity of the work in the operating department (Christian et al.,

2006; Mazzocco et al., 2009). Just as the technical complexities are recognised, so too is

the importance of teamwork for surgical safety (Manser, 2009; WHO, 2009).

Surgical safety in the operating department comprises technical and non-technical

skills. Non-technical skills refer to cognitive skills such as teamwork, communication,

leadership and decision making, to name a few (Yule, Flin, Paterson-Brown, & Maran,

2006). Non-technical skills are found to be as important as technical skills in maintaining

patient safety during surgical procedures. For example, problems in communication are a

causative factor in 43% of errors in surgical procedures (Gawande, Zinner, Studdert, &

Brennan, 2003). Non-technical skills are general and relevant to all members of any given

team, especially in operating theatres. Several strategies can be adopted to reduce errors

and to prevent them from causing harm.

2.5. Strategic reduction of adverse events

Different approaches have been taken to reduce errors and adverse events in the

medical field as in other high-risk fields such as aviation and nuclear technology. Major

contributions to improvements in error-reduction efforts have been achieved by

understanding the nature of errors. Reason (1990) classifies errors as human and non-

human. Non-human errors are related to equipment and technology failure that contributes

to errors. The term safety-engineered device is widely used to refer to devices which

include safety mechanisms to reduce errors and faults (Gaba, 2000). However, medical

treatments are human-based, and equipment and devices play only a supportive role: in

other words, health care workers use different devices to help them treat their patients

Literature Review 16
(Bates et al., 2001; Bates et al., 1998; Leape et al., 1995). Thus, the focus of safety

scientists has been on human error.

Human error is one of the most commonly cited causes of medical adverse events

(Leape, 1994; Pelletier, 2001; Wilson et al., 1995). Human errors in general are referred to

as slips, lapses and mistakes (Reason, 1990). In simplified terms, slips are actions not

carried out as intended, lapses are an omission of actions required from memory failure or

forgetfulness, and mistakes refer to the conduct of wrong actions. Leape (1994, p. 1853)

reclassifies human errors into skill-, rule- and knowledge-based errors. He explains that

skill-based errors are unconscious errors in performing an automatic activity or skill, rule-

based errors result from the application of an incorrect rule to solve a certain problem, and

knowledge-based errors result from a lack of knowledge or misinterpretation. Based on

Reason’s (1990) classification of human errors, Leape (1994) argues that skill-based errors

are “slips” whereas rule- and knowledge-based errors are “mistakes”.

Human errors are inevitable because humans are naturally prone to error (Cuschieri,

2006). Therefore, the focus of researchers has moved from attempting to perfect human

beings by making them infallible, to perfecting their work environment by making it harder

to make errors. Reason (1990) proposes the “Swiss-cheese model” where defence lines are

created to intercept errors before they can result in accidents or adverse events. For

example, using a computerised physician-order entry system to safeguard against

medication prescription errors reduces medication errors by 60% to 80% (Bates et al.,

1998; Bates et al., 1997).

Management of and reaction to errors have been classified by Reason (2000) into

two main approaches: system approach (for latent errors) and person approach (for active

errors). Unlike the person approach, where unintentional errors are associated with workers

instead of the institution, errors under the system approach are perceived as a consequence

rather than a cause. Reason (2000, p. 768) identifies the need to improve the system

Literature Review 17
because “though we cannot change the human condition, we can change the conditions

under which humans work”. In health settings, Stock, McFadden, and Gowen III (2007)

argue, the focus of error-reduction strategies has shifted from the person approach to the

system approach since the IOM (Kohn et al., 2000) report, which emphasises the need to

improve safety culture in health organisations in order to improve patient safety. It is

argued that safety culture is based on integrated patterns of shared beliefs and values about

safety between institutions and their workforce (Kizer, 1999; Weaver et al., 2013). The

Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (IOM, 2001, p. 79) argues that changing

a culture from seeing errors as individual failures into seeing them as opportunities for

system improvement is “the biggest challenge to moving toward a safer health system”.

More than a decade later, Weaver and colleagues (2013) found evidence in their systematic

review that patient safety is improved through improvement to the safety culture.

2.6. Safety culture and safety climate

An overview of culture, as an important and relevant aspect of safety culture, is

presented and followed by a review of the concepts of safety culture and safety climate.

Culture is defined anthropologically as consisting

In patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted

mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups,

including their embodiments in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of

traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their

attached values. (Kluckhohn, 1951, p. 86)

The concept of culture is relevant to different fields (Mead & Andrews, 2009). In

the field of management, Hofstede (1984, p. 82) defined culture as “the collective

programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or society from

those of another” emphasising the existence of differences between people based on their

Literature Review 18
cultural backgrounds. He then continued describing the influence of culture and cultural

backgrounds on people and behaviours by stating that

Culture is reflected in the meanings people attach to various aspects of life; their

way of looking of the world and their role in it. … Culture, although basically

resident in people’s minds, becomes crystallized in the institutions and tangible

products of a society. (1984, p. 82)

This influence establishes the connection between the concept of anthropological

culture with other forms of culture (i.e. organisational culture) through people belonging to

the first and working in the latter.

Hofstede referred to the influence of culture on people as a mental program within

the software of the mind, as in the title of his book (1991). Culture was distinguished from

other programs as it is completely learned. Figure 2 showed that the mind is influenced by

three levels of programming. The basic level is human nature, such as the feeling of fear or

happiness, which is universal to all mankind and completely intrinsic. The expression of

these feelings is controlled by what is accepted and learnt culturally (group culture);

second level. The third level is the individual personality which is both inherited and

learned. Culture, as it is completely learned, can be manipulated and probably changed, to

some extent, despite its relative stability (Guldenmund, 2000; Hofstede, Hofstede, &

Minkov, 2010; Schein, 2010).

Literature Review 19
Figure 2: Three levels of mental programming (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 6).

The term culture has been used in different contexts beyond the original

anthropological perspective, and nowadays is a fluid term that can be used to describe a

wide range of social aspects ranging from societies, races and nations to specific behaviour

or perceptions such as organisational or safety cultures. Schein (2010, p. 2) divides culture

into four categories (Figure 3). The first is “macroculture”, which he identifies as a culture

that exists globally, such as an ethnic, religious, or nationwide culture. A good example of

a macroculture is the followers of a certain religion who share beliefs that shape their lives

despite geographical separation. The second category is “organisational culture”, which is

exemplified in any given organisation despite its nature of work and refers to organisations

that make up societies. The third category is “subculture”, which make up organisational

cultures and can take the form of professional groups. The fourth level is “microculture”,

subgroups or teams within larger categories. Depending on the context in which these

categories are viewed, they can exist as major categories with subcultures, or as a

subculture of other major categories. For example, medicine could be looked at as a

subculture of the hospital (organisational culture); however, it could also be looked at as a

macroculture (global) with subcultures such as surgical and internal medicine. Culture,

Literature Review 20
hereafter, refers to macroculture level represented in national and ethnic background unless

otherwise stated.

Figure 3: Schein's different categories of culture mapped to Hofstede et al.’s mental

programming levels

The term safety culture was first introduced by the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA)’s initial report into the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 (Lee, 1998). It

gained importance because of its relevance to investigations of high-profile accidents such

as the Kings Cross underground station’s fire (Fennell, 1988), Clapham Junction’s train

crash (Hidden, 1989) and the Piper-Alpha oil platform explosion (Cullen, 1990), to name

but a few. It was concluded, across different accidents, that safety was breached not

because of the lack of safety regulations, but because of the nature of the safety culture and

climate in those organisations (Advisory Committee on Safety of Nuclear Installations

[ACSNI], 1993).

Researchers and investigators have emphasised the importance of safety culture as

a key element for successful organisations (Gaba, Singer, Sinaiko, Bowen, & Ciavarelli,

2003). The most reported definition of safety culture is the Advisory Committee on Safety

Literature Review 21
of Nuclear Installations’ definition (Guldenmund, 2000; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011), which

defines the safety culture of a given organisation as “the product of individual and group

values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies and patterns of behaviour that determine the

commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organisation’s health and safety

management” (ACSNI, 1993, p. 23). Simply defining safety culture is not sufficient to

understand and comprehend its meaning. Organisations with a desirable and positive safety

culture are characterised “by communications founded on mutual trust, by shared

perceptions of the importance of safety, and by confidence in the efficacy of preventive

measures” (ACSNI, 1993, p. 23). The definition and characteristics of safety culture are in

general terms for both industrial and health organisations. Health and safety management

in health organisations includes the safety of both health care workers and their patients.

Geller (1994) presents ten principles that form what he calls total safety culture in

any given workplace: employee-driven safety policy and procedures; a behaviour-based

approach; a focus on safety process not outcomes; a view of behaviour being directed by

activators and motivated by consequences; focus on achieving success, not avoiding

failure; observation and feedback on work practices; effective feedback through behaviour-

based coaching; observation and coaching as key activities; the importance of self-esteem,

belonging and empowerment; and safety as a priority rather than a value. He models safety

culture into three distinct, dynamic and interactive factors: person, behaviour and

environment (Geller, 1994).

A similar model is provided by Cooper (2000), who classifies safety culture into

psychological, behavioural and situational components, with recognition of the presence of

reciprocal relationships among them. Cooper replaces Geller’s person and environment

with psychological and situational. He refers to psychological components as values,

beliefs and attitudes about safety and indicates that they can be investigated through safety

climate questionnaires. The behavioural component is referred to as competencies and

Literature Review 22
patterns of behaviour that can be measured through behavioural safety initiatives such as

checklists. Finally, the situational component refers to the organisational safety system and

sub-systems that can be assessed through safety management audits (Cooper, 2000, p.

120).

Cooper (2000, p. 114) argues that safety culture is mainly defined as something that

the organisation is rather than something that the organisation has. Unlike the latter view,

the “functionalist view”, where safety culture is looked at as fulfilling a pre-determined

function within an organisation, in the former view, the “interpretative view”, safety

culture is argued to be an emergent property of social groupings (Cooper, 2000, p. 114). It

was argued that the majority of safety culture researchers believe that safety culture

emerges from the safety values, attitudes and behaviours of a given organisation’s

members; however, safety climate is also referred to as the individual’s aggregated

attitudes and perceptions about safety (Flin, Mearns, O'Connor, & Bryden, 2000;

Guldenmund, 2000). Safety culture and safety climate are often used interchangeably in the

literature, and some researchers debate whether they describe the same concepts (Halligan

& Zecevic, 2011; O’Connor, O’Dea, Kennedy, & Buttrey, 2011).

The most accepted definition of safety climate is

The surface features of the safety culture discerned from the workforce’s attitudes

and perceptions at a given point in time ... It is a snapshot of the state of safety

providing an indicator of the underlying safety culture of a work group, plant or

organisation (Flin et al., 2000, p. 187).

In Guldenmund’s (2000) review, safety climate is argued to measure the safety

attitude while safety culture is actually what shapes and drives that attitude. Most studies

that define safety culture and safety climate use safety climate as the measurable elements

that describe the safety culture (Halligan & Zecevic, 2011), or simply “the measurable

Literature Review 23
components of safety culture” (Colla, Bracken, Kinney, & Weeks, 2005, p. 364). Safety

culture is considered to be a sub-set culture of organisational culture (Cooper, 2000;

Frazier, Ludwig, Whitaker, & Roberts, 2013), and researchers have called for the concept

of safety culture to be studied within the broader context of organisational culture (Frazier

et al., 2013; Guldenmund, 2000).

2.7. Organisational culture and climate

Historically, safety culture and safety climate are derived from organisational

culture and climate, both of which have been extensively researched since the 1970s and

1980s (Guldenmund, 2000). The definitions of organisational culture and climate overlap,

and the differences between them are not clear. Verbeke, Volgering and Hessels (1998)

note that more than 50 different definitions exist of the concept of organisational culture.

Reichers and Schneider (1990) argue that organisational climate lacks consistency in

definition and conceptualisation. Safety culture and safety climate also inherit this lack of

clarity (Flin et al., 2000).

The concept of organisational climate preceded the concept of organisational

culture by almost 20 years (Reichers & Schneider, 1990) but the concepts were not

separate from each other and the term organisational culture replaced the term

organisational climate in the 1980s (Guldenmund, 2000). This created an overlap in the

definition and conceptualisation of both concepts. Despite pointing out the different origins

of the concepts (climate from social psychological disciplines, culture from anthropology),

Glick (1985) considered the differences between them more ostensible than real. This

notion was shared by Reichers and Schneider (1990), who considered culture as merely a

replacement for climate.

On the other hand, the distinction between the two concepts was clear in Ekvall’s

(1983) work, which considered the concepts as different components of the social system

Literature Review 24
within organisations. He referred to shared beliefs and values as culture, and behavioural

aspects as climate. Schein (1992, p. 230) classifies the relationship between culture and

climate by describing climate as “a reflection and manifestation of cultural assumptions”.

Guldenmund (2000) concludes in his review that when the term culture succeeded climate,

this resulted in climate being limited to the measurement and description of attitudes

within an organisation. Both organisational culture and climate can be discussed within

this conceptualisation.

Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Wick (1970, p. 390) define organisational climate

as “a set of attributes specific to a particular organization that may be induced from the

way the organization deals with its members and its environment”. Organisational climate

has been described as the common patterns or shared perceptions of an organisation’s

members in terms of their institution and their roles in that organisation (Peterson & White,

1992; Reichers & Schneider, 1990). It differs from organisational culture in that it is

concerned with individuals’ attitudes and perceptions of certain aspects of the

organisational environment, whereas culture is based on organisation-wide shared beliefs

(Reichers & Schneider, 1990). Schein (2010, p. 18) defines organisational culture as

A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its

problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well

enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the

correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

Scott (1987) considers that organisational culture consists of external variables

(e.g., the external environment hosting the organisation) and internal variables representing

the value and style of an organisation. This assumption is in line with the findings of

Hofstede’s seminal work in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Hofstede (1983) studied

100,000 IBM employees in different geographical settings and found that, despite working

Literature Review 25
for the same company, organisational cultures differed based on their geographical

locations and the hosting cultures leading him to define culture as presented earlier.

Organisational culture has its roots in anthropological studies: knowing this helps to

define its characteristics. Guldenmund (2000, p. 225) describes the characteristics of

organisational culture as a “relatively stable, multidimensional, holistic construct shared by

(groups of) organisational members that supplies a frame of reference and which gives

meaning to and/or is typically revealed in certain practices”. Based on the assumption that

the organisational climate is an organisational culture under formation (Schein, 1992), it is

anticipated that climate is less stable than culture, having fewer dimensionalities and being

more specific to certain aspects of a given organisation. When an organisational climate is

not deeply rooted in the beliefs of an organisation, less resistance to change is expected

(Denison, 1996); thus, it is in the best interests of management to intervene and manipulate

organisational climate which, if maintained over a period of time, should result in a more

desirable organisational culture with the required stability. This assumption has been

evident in the approaches traditionally used to investigate both concepts.

Despite the concepts of organisational culture and climate both emerging from the

social sciences, they have different theoretical origins. It has been argued that

organisational culture research is interested in the evolution of the social system within an

organisation while organisational climate research is more concerned with the effect of the

organisational system on individuals and groups (Denison, 1996). Organisational culture

has conventionally been investigated subjectively, using a qualitative paradigm;

organisational climate, on the other hand, has been investigated objectively within a

quantitative paradigm (Denison, 1996; Guldenmund, 2000; Reichers & Schneider, 1990).

It is not uncommon for research on organisational culture to be rich in descriptions, unlike

the comparative research of organisational climate (Denison, 1996; Reichers & Schneider,

Literature Review 26
1990). However, given the overlap of these concepts, a less strict application of traditional

paradigms is evident in the literature (Frazier et al., 2013).

Safety culture and safety climate are clearly derivatives of organisational culture

and climate, which can be greatly influenced by the national culture, which is considered

as part (or a type) of anthropological culture. In other words, national culture may have an

influence on safety culture and climate either directly or indirectly. This is of particular

interest in the current study as it tries to understand and assess safety culture and climate in

health organisations located within Saudi culture, using specific methodological

approaches to investigate patient safety culture and climate.

2.8. Patient safety culture and climate

The concepts of safety culture and climate were adopted in health care

organisations after they had been linked to safer environments and work practice in fields

such as nuclear plants and aviation (Halligan & Zecevic, 2011). Despite the concept of

modern patient safety tracing back to 1991 (Leape, 2008), the relevance of safety culture

and climate to patient safety was only widely adopted after the IOM’s report was published

in 1999 (Flin, Burns, Mearns, Yule, & Robertson, 2006; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011;

Jackson, Sarac, & Flin, 2010). As a result, the concepts of patient safety culture and

climate can be looked at as the descendants of safety culture and climate in other fields.

They are applicable to health care settings, where safety climate takes on a more specific

definition as “the consensus of shared perceptions regarding patient safety norms and

behaviors by frontline workers in a given clinical area” (Sexton et al., 2011, p. 934).

Different approaches using different tools are used to investigate patient safety culture and

climate.

Pumar-Méndez, Attree and Wakefield (2014) conducted an extensive review of

studies that assessed patient safety in health organisations, focusing on methodological

Literature Review 27
aspects of safety culture assessment. Despite researchers’ recommendations and

suggestions to use a mixed methods approach to study safety culture (Glendon & Stanton,

2000; Guldenmund, 2000; Nieva & Sorra, 2003; Pumar-méndez et al., 2014; Reiman &

Oedewald, 2002; Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall, 2003), almost all the reviewed

research followed the quantitative approach using cross-sectional surveys (Pumar-méndez

et al., 2014). Only one used a mixed methods approach (Cook, Hoas, Guttmannova, &

Joyner, 2004) and one used an ethnographic approach (Waring, 2007).

Several explanations for the domination of the quantitative approach (e.g., cross-

sectional surveys) in the safety culture and climate research have been proposed (Clarke,

2000; Colla et al., 2005; Nieva & Sorra, 2003; Reiman & Oedewald, 2002). First, surveys

can be useful in collecting shared beliefs, values and norms about different safety issues

from a large number of employees, relatively quickly and in an economical fashion.

Second, surveys produce numerical results that can be aggregated to any desired level to

summarise the safety climate at that level. Third, the numerical results can be used to

assess changes in safety climate over time or compare the results with similar

organisations. Despite these benefits, researchers have expressed doubts about using only a

quantitative approach to assess safety culture (Cooper, 2000; Guldenmund, 2000; Hopkins,

2006; Marshall, Parker, Esmail, Kirk, & Claridge, 2003; Nieva & Sorra, 2003; Reiman &

Oedewald, 2002; Schein, 2010; Scott et al., 2003). Their main concern is the ability of the

quantitative approach to reveal the core aspect of any given culture, including safety

culture. However, safety climate (as the measurable component of safety culture) has

traditionally been studied this way through cross-sectional surveys (Flin et al., 2000;

Guldenmund, 2000; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011).

Literature Review 28
2.9. Patient safety climate as a measurement of patient safety
culture
Improving patient safety in any given health care organisation requires a thorough

understanding of safety culture and climate. Different methods and tools have been used to

assess patient safety in an effort to find ways for improvement. The use of safety culture

tools to assess patient safety can be beneficial in several aspects. Nieva and Sorra (2003)

summarise the importance of studying safety culture and climate in health care

organisations by specifying four aims: 1) diagnostic reasons for identifying areas of

improvement; 2) both internal and external benchmarking; 3) evaluation of safety

interventions and tracking of changes; or 4) simple adherence to authorities’ regulations.

These four aims, despite not being exclusive, map the importance of patient safety

investigations. Health care organisations regularly assess safety culture and climate,

whether initiated from within or as required by regulatory authorities, to identify areas for

possible improvement and interventions as required. These interventions are usually aimed

at transforming the culture, behaviour or system, among other components. Once areas for

improvement are identified, interventions can be designed and conducted to improve

patient safety.

2.10. Review of surveys

The most common method of collecting safety climate data is through

questionnaires (Guldenmund, 2000; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011). Questionnaires can

provide a systematic way of collecting a large amount of data simultaneously in a practical

way (De Vaus, 2001), enabling investigators to identify consensus in respondents’

perceptions (Sexton et al., 2006a). A large number of different safety dimensions have

been tested by several different questionnaires. As the study of safety climate is in its

infancy, consistency in determining most relevant dimensions has yet to be achieved

(Halligan & Zecevic, 2011; Singla, Kitch, Weissman, & Campbell, 2006). Depending on

Literature Review 29
the tool used, the unit/department and the type of investigation, the dimensions can change

(Jackson et al., 2010). The reviews indicate that a large number of overlapping dimensions

exist in the literature, making it difficult to categorise them into safety themes (Colla et al.,

2005; Fleming, 2005; Flin et al., 2006; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011; Jackson et al., 2010;

Kirk, Parker, Claridge, Esmail, & Marshall, 2007; Sexton et al., 2006a; Singla et al., 2006).

Singla and colleagues in 2006 identified 23 different dimensions in their extensive

review of the safety climate surveys available. Based on consultation with patient safety

experts, they reclassified them into 13 dimensions: management and supervision; safety

system; risk; work pressure; competence; procedures and rules; teamwork;

communication; organisational learning; feedback and communication; beliefs about the

cause of errors and adverse events; job satisfaction; and overall perception of safety. Two

years later Fleming and Wentzell (2008) conducted a review of patient safety surveys and

reduced the dimensions to six fundamental dimensions: leadership, safety systems, job

demands, organisational reporting, teamwork and communication.

Consistency in the safety climate dimensions has yet to be achieved, yet common

dimensions are recurrent in the literature. The following list identifies combined

dimensions extracted from four different reviews:

1- Top management’s/supervisors’ commitment to safety

2- Safety system, including evidence-based policy and procedures

3- Teamwork

4- Communication openness within and across teams/units/departments

5- Analysis and feedback about adverse events following a non-punitive approach

6- Continuous training and education, including organisational learning

7- Job demand, stress recognition and staff satisfaction

8- Safety perception and attitude (Colla et al., 2005; Flin et al., 2006; Halligan &

Zecevic, 2011; Jackson et al., 2010).

Literature Review 30
 This list is not inclusive. Endless lists of dimensions exist and will continue to be

identified as new developments arise in research on safety climate. Nevertheless, given that

safety culture is influenced by organisational culture (Guldenmund, 2000) and the latter is

influenced by the national culture (Hofstede, 1983), studies investigating the influence of

national culture on safety culture were not located through the literature search. Similarly,

there is a lack of research evidence on the influence of multiculturalism on health care

teams in regards to safety; although the influence of cultural differences between health

care professionals and their patients (who are usually from minority cultural backgrounds)

on patient safety is evident (Johnstone & Kanitsaki, 2006, 2008; Renzaho, Romios, Crock,

& Sønderlund, 2013; Suurmond, Uiters, de Bruijne, Stronks, & Essink-Bot, 2010).

Various tools claiming to measure safety climate are abundant in the literature.

Several safety climate instruments measure different dimensions of patient safety in health

care organisations. Reviews of patient safety and safety climate instruments have also been

conducted on a regular basis (Colla et al., 2005; Cooper, 2000; Flin et al., 2006; Flin et al.,

2000; Guldenmund, 2000, 2007, 2010; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011; Jackson et al., 2010;

Jha, Prasopa-Plaizier, Larizgoitia, & Bates, 2010; Pumar-méndez et al., 2014). Given this

plethora of instruments, researchers have recommended the use of only psychometrically

tested and valid tools (Colla et al., 2005; Flin, 2007; Guldenmund, 2010; Nieva & Sorra,

2003; Singla et al., 2006). These reviews provide comparative analyses of the available

instruments, and helped in the choice of the instrument for the current study. The reviews

were also used as a starting point to indicate the available instruments. Findings from these

reviews were compared to identify similarities and differences, and a manual bibliographic

search was conducted to retrieve all available instruments. The findings of the reviews

were then cross-checked with the findings of the manual search. This was done to build on

the work achieved in the field in a critical way.

Literature Review 31
 The focus of the review was to find instruments that have been 1) subjected to

psychometric and validity testing; 2) used in different contexts and cultures as this study is

conducted in a different culture than the Western where most of the research conducted;

and 3) used or could be used in operating theatres’ settings. Psychometrically sound and

valid tools help reflect safety culture more accurately than other tools (Flin, 2007;

Guldenmund, 2010). In addition, it was assumed that tools that had been tested in different

contexts would be more suitable for this study’s contexts. Finally, tools that specifically

addressed issues in operating theatres were generally more preferable.

Several reviews addressed patient safety climate instruments as their main aim or as

part of their review of patient safety in general (Colla et al., 2005; Fleming, 2005; Flin et

al., 2006; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011; Jackson et al., 2010; Pumar-Méndez et al., 2014;

Singla et al., 2006). These provided a strong indication of the plethora of instruments

measuring patient safety climate, as there was hardly any duplication of the instruments on

which they reported. The lack of consensus on the core aspects of safety culture has led

researchers to develop different tools that vary in their focus, length and structure (Flin et

al., 2000; Guldenmund, 2000; Singla et al., 2006). The available instruments included a

diverse range of items (from nine to 99) and dimensions (from one to 12) (Pumar-Méndez

et al., 2014). Most instruments appearing in each review, depending on the review’s focus,

were used in a single study with no reporting of any psychometric properties (Table 2.1).

Fleming (2005) emphasises the superiority of three instruments: 1) the Safety

Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ), 2) the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC)

and 3) the Modified Stanford Patient Safety Culture Survey Instrument (MSI). Meanwhile,

Flin and colleagues (2006) indicate in their review that safety climate instruments are still

in the early stage of development and validation. Five years later, Halligan and Zecevic

(2011) indicate that the SAQ, HSOPSC and MSI along with the Patient Safety Culture in

Health Organisations (PSCHO) survey are the most widely used instruments. Jackson and

Literature Review 32
colleagues (2010) found in their review that the SAQ, HSOPSC, PSCHO and the Hospital

Safety Climate (HSC) survey are the most appropriate instruments and show acceptable

psychometric properties. Similarly, in a review of safety climate measurements, the Health

Foundation (United Kingdom - UK) (2011, p. 3) reports that the SAQ, HSOPSC, PSCHO,

the Safety Climate Survey (SCS) and the Manchester Patient Safety Assessment

Framework are “the most rigorously tested and well known tools”. European Union

Network for Patient Safety (2010) recommend the use of the SAQ and HSOPSC or the

qualitative tool, the Manchester Patient Safety Assessment Framework, in their report

prepared for the European Society for Quality in Healthcare.

All these reviews consistently recommend the use of the SAQ or HSOPSC because

of their psychometric properties, validity and applicability to safety climate research. Both

the SAQ and HSOPSC were developed and tested to measure patient safety climate in

health organisations. The HSOPSC consists of 12 dimensions (AHRQ, 2011) while the

SAQ has only six (Sexton et al., 2006a). Both instruments address core aspects of safety

including teamwork, communication and management support. The SAQ addresses human

factors and job satisfaction along with core aspects of safety culture; the HSOPSC includes

handoffs (delegation of responsibility to other professionals) and the supervisor’s role in

promoting patient safety. Singla et al. (2006) indicate that these two instruments are similar

in terms of strength and appropriateness, and suggest that the choice between them should

be based on the desired dimensions of safety to be investigated and the targeted clinical

place and participants.

The SAQ was developed for critical care areas and has a version specifically

modified to investigate the safety climate in operating theatres (Sexton et al., 2006a).

Pronovost and colleagues (2009, p. 176) claim that the SAQ is the “most thoroughly

validated and widely used instrument to assess safety culture in health care”. The SAQ is

Literature Review 33
also sensitive in picking up differences at the unit level, which is the recommended level

for patient safety investigation and improvement (Sexton et al., 2006a).

Table 2.1: Reviews of the survey instruments

Included instruments Concluding comments
Author
9 instruments were compared Instruments varied on the last two sets of
Colla, 2005
based on set criteria (n=24) criterions: SAQ (n=23); HSOPS (n=18)
generally covering four areas:
Instrument characteristics,
dimensions covered,
psychometric testing, and how it
was used

Reviewed 4 instrument based on HSOPSC and SAQ had similar weaknesses

Fleming,
recommendation from Canadian and strengths, main strength was the
2005
Council on Health Services benchmarking data; main weakness was the
Accreditation by presenting length.
description, weaknesses and
strengths.
SAQ, Stanford Instrument,
HSOPSC, MSI

12 instruments identified Concluded that all reviewed instruments

Flin et al.,
were at an early stage of development and
2006
needed more testing

13 instruments identified Commonalities and differences were

Singla, 2006
identified; HSOPS and SAQ advantaged
from benchmarking data and psychometric
properties.

12 instruments identified; the The most widely used were SAQ, HSOPSC,
Halligan and
review focus was concerned PSCHO and MSI
Zecieve 2011
with patient safety in general

Aimed to review SAQ, HSOPS, Most used one of the four:

Jackson et
PSCHO and HSC as the widely SAQ & HSOPSC Both studies proven good
al., 2010
used instruments at unit level -
PSCHO – proven good at hospital level
HSC – used for workplace exposure injuries

19 instruments were reviewed to Recommended the use of

EUNPS,
make recommendation for use in SAQ
2010
European Union. HSOPS
Manchester patient safety assessment
framework

Literature Review 34
2.11. Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) development
The current version of the SAQ has been through different stages of development

and refinement. The Flight Management Attitudes Questionnaire (FMAQ) was the original

instrument used to develop the Intensive Care Unit Management Attitudes Questionnaire

which, in turn, was used to develop the SAQ (Sexton et al., 2006a). The FMAQ was

developed to measure the attitudes of flight crew members about such things as teamwork,

speaking up and communication, which were found to contribute to most accidents in

aviation (Helmreich, Merritt, Sherman, Gregorich, & Wiener, 1993). Twenty-five per cent

of FMAQ items, applicable in medical settings, were retained in the SAQ (Sexton et al.,

2006a). The other SAQ items were developed based on discussions and the focus group

approach with health care providers and experts in the field of patient safety (Sexton et al.,

2006a).

Most safety climate instruments are criticised for lacking theoretical underpinning

in their development or application (Flin et al., 2000; Flin, 2007; Guldenmund, 2000,

2007). Sexton and colleagues (2006a) indicate that the SAQ is based on two conceptual

models: Vincent, Taylor-Adams and Stanhope’s (1998) framework for analysing risk and

safety, and Donabedian’s (1988) conceptual model for assessing quality.

This process of development was also supported using an appropriate validation

process. The SAQ was piloted and tested in different settings such as intensive care units,

operating theatres, general inpatient settings like medical or surgical wards and ambulatory

units (a total of 203 units) in the USA, the UK and New Zealand (Sexton et al., 2006a).

The SAQ was subsequently subjected to rigorous psychometric testing that resulted in the

current version, used in this study. Benchmarking data were made available for future

usage and comparisons. A multilevel factor analysis yielded 30 items measuring six

dimensions with high reliability (Raykov’s rho = 0.90) (Sexton et al., 2006a) and

measuring participants’ agreement with the 30 statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =

Literature Review 35
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree). Higher

scores are considered to be indicative of the presence of a positive safety climate,

associated with positive patient and staff outcomes (Health Foundation, 2011; Sexton et

al., 2006a). SAQ has been recommended to be used to measure the effectiveness of safety

improvement activities (Watts, Percarpio, West, & Mills, 2010)

The Health Foundation’s (2011) review indicates that the SAQ is unique in having

been used for more than 20 years in different industries. The review indicates that the SAQ

is suitable for comparing attitudes between different professions where it has been

validated for this purpose. Sexton and colleagues (2006a) tested factorability and

determined that the SAQ is valuable in detecting differences within and across

organisations. The SAQ has been used in different settings (Pronovost et al., 2009) and has

been translated into different languages including Turkish (Kaya, Barsbay, & Karabulut,

2010), Swedish (Nordén-Hägg, Sexton, Kälvemark-Sporrong, Ring, & Kettis-Lindblad,

2010), Dutch (Devriendt et al., 2012), Chinese (Lee et al., 2010), Norwegian (Deilkås &

Hofoss, 2008) and German (Zimmermann et al., 2013). Two Arabic translations were

located at a later stage of this study (Abdou & Saber, 2011; Hamdan, 2013).

The SAQ’s measured dimensions are teamwork climate, safety climate, job

satisfaction, perception of management, stress recognition and working conditions. These

are discussed in detail in the following sub-sections.

2.11.1. Teamwork climate

The teamwork climate dimension is concerned with the quality of collaboration and

communication between health care professionals within a clinical area (Sexton et al.,

2006b; Thomas, Sexton, & Helmreich, 2004). Familiarity and trust between team

members, their experience and professional beliefs, their perception of collaboration with

other team members, and their role and job within an organisation are among the most

Literature Review 36
influential factors on the quality of the teamwork climate (Sexton et al., 2006b;

Zwarenstein & Bryant, 2000). A positive teamwork climate is indicative of strong cohesion

within the team, characterised by an environment that values and welcomes members’

contributions with a high level of familiarity between team members that can lead to better

prediction of colleagues’ responses in emergencies (Sexton et al., 2006a). As poor

teamwork has been associated with an increase in adverse events (Barraclough & Birch,

2006), improving teamwork is advocated as an important factor in improving patient safety

(Hindle, Braithwaite, Travaglia, & Iedema, 2006; Leigh, Long, & Barraclough, 2004;

Sexton et al., 2006b). Sexton and colleagues (2006b) argue that understanding the

perceptions and attitudes of team members about the state of teamwork within a clinical

place can be considered an initial step to improving the teamwork climate.

Serious adverse events in operating theatres have been linked to teamwork and

communication breakdown (Edmonds, Liguori, & Stanton, 2005; Gawande et al., 2003).

Effective teamwork is one of five strategies recommended for safer health systems in the

IOM report (Kohn et al., 2000), and positive teamwork in operating theatres has been

shown to be an integral part of a positive safety culture (Saufl, 2002, 2004), associated

with a lower error-reduction rate in aviation (Helmreich, Foushee, Benson, & Russini,

1986) and health settings (Baggs et al., 1999; Shortell et al., 1994). It has also been

associated with lower nurse turnover in operating theatres (Makary et al., 2006). Positive

teamwork is associated with less dissatisfaction and less sick leave being taken by health

care professionals (Kivimäki et al., 2001). A lack of positive teamwork has been found to

be one of the important sources of nurses’ dissatisfaction with their profession (Aiken,

Clarke, Sloane, Sochalski, & Silber, 2002), leading to nursing turnover and shortages and

an increase in patient mortality (Aiken, Clarke, Sloane, Lake, & Cheney, 2008; Bednash,

2000).

Literature Review 37
 2.11.2. Safety climate
The safety climate dimension is used as an indication of the presence of a proactive

commitment to patient safety by investigating the processes of adverse events reporting

behaviour and management (Sexton et al., 2006). A proactive commitment towards patient

safety has been argued as an essential part of positive safety culture (Barraclough, 2004;

McFerran, Nunes, Pucci, & Zuniga, 2005; Pronovost & Sexton, 2005). The proactive

commitment presents itself in the actions taken by leaders and managers in response to

adverse events, especially by encouraging reporting, providing feedback to employees and

implementing a non-punitive system (DeJoy, 2005; Frazier et al., 2013).

2.11.3. Job satisfaction

The job satisfaction dimension relates to issues affecting staff morale, contentment

with work and autonomy in work practice (Sexton et al., 2006a). Job satisfaction, in terms

of a longer turnover time, helps to maintain an adequate level of staffing and creates an

attractive environment that has been associated with a positive safety culture (Aiken et al.,

2008; Aiken et al., 2002; Duffield, 2007; Sexton et al., 2006a). Lack of job satisfaction

leads to emotional exhaustion, or burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2008) and is an indication of

a safety culture that needs improvement.

2.11.4. Perception of management

The perception of management dimension investigates the workers’ perceptions of

leadership and management in their workplace, as represented by clinician managers. The

clinician manager’s role has been shown to be essential in the development of patient

safety strategies (Harris, Treanor, & Salisbury, 2006). A critical aspect of their role

involves maintaining a safe system in health care delivery for both health care workers and

their patients (Braithwaite et al., 2004; Ireri, Walshe, Benson, & Mwanthi, 2011). It has

been argued that the safe delivery of health care is dependent on management’s decisions

Literature Review 38
on the level of staffing and the availability of required equipment (Nunes & McFerran,

2005; Sexton et al., 2006a). A positive perception of management is indicated by the

prioritisation of safety and quality over other organisational and managerial aspects

(Duffield, Roche, O’Brien-Pallas, Catling-Paull, & King, 2009).

2.11.5. Stress recognition

The stress recognition dimension investigates the extent to which health care

workers recognise the effect of stress impairment on their work and judgement in the

workplace. It includes both stress and fatigue, which are usually a result of extended

working hours (Dorrian et al., 2006). Long working hours, and related fatigue, have been

associated with an increase in medical errors (Landrigan et al., 2004; Williamson et al.,

2011). Working long hours has been shown to be ingrained in health care organisations’

culture, with a lack of recognition of its effect on workers as reported by the Australian

Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) (ACSQHC, 2005)). The effect

of stress and fatigue has been recognised by organisations in aviation, leading to a

reduction in and capping of working hours (Sexton, Thomas, & Helmreich, 2000).

2.11.6. Working conditions

The working conditions dimension is measured by four items relating to issues of

the working environment: training, supervision, policy and procedures (Sexton et al.,

2006a). Working conditions are considered an important component of the health care

system (Hickam et al., 2003; Taylor et al., 2011) and have been associated directly with

patient outcomes (IOM, 2001). They have also been associated with staff shortages (Stone

et al., 2007), which in turn have been associated with patients’ probability of survival

(Aiken et al., 2002). Higher scores on working conditions are indicative of the presence of

a positive working environment.

Literature Review 39
 2.11.7. Communication and collaboration ratings
A breakdown in communication has been found to be a leading cause of wrong-site

surgeries, among other adverse events (Lingard et al., 2004a; Nagpal et al., 2010; Rabøl et

al., 2011). Communication is considered an integral part of safety culture (Blake, Kohler,

Rask, Davis, & Naylor, 2006; Farrell & Davies, 2006; Gillespie, Chaboyer, & Murray,

2010; Gillespie, Gwinner, Chaboyer, & Fairweather, 2013; Hansen, Williams, & Singer,

2011; Hansen et al., 2003; Sammer, Lykens, Singh, Mains, & Lackan, 2010). Makary and

colleagues (2006) found differences in how health care professionals view the quality of

communication with colleagues from the same profession and with colleagues from other

professions. They found that surgeons rate communication with fellow surgeons as high or

very high 85% of the time. On the other hand, nurses rate the quality of communication

and collaboration with surgeons as high or very high only 48% of the time (Makary et al.,

2006). Communication is an important aspect of patient safety, especially in operating

theatres where professionals from different disciplines work together at the same time on

the same patient.

2.12. Patient safety in Saudi Arabia

Studies investigating patient safety in Saudi Arabia are diverse in their aims, the

tools used, the dimensions measured, and the findings. Studies have attempted to develop

new tools (Al-Saleh & Ramadan, 2011; Walston et al., 2010) as well as using validated

tools such as the HSOPSC (Aboshaiqah & Baker, 2013; Al-Ahmadi, 2009; Alahmadi,

2010), different versions of the SCS (Almutairi, Gardner, & McCarthy, 2013; Taher et al.,

2014) and different versions of the SAQ (Alayed, Lööf, & Johansson, 2014; Zakari, 2011).

These tools measure different dimensions and so produce different results, but there are

also results in common although based on different research aims.

Al-Saleh and Ramadan (2011) developed and tested a tool in 16 Saudi hospitals to

examine agreement between frontline employees and managers regarding the impact of

Literature Review 40
human factor interventions on patient safety. They conclude that their tool is valid;

however, it has not been used since. They found diverse assumptions between frontline

employees and managers in terms of the level of training and education, reaction to errors

and level of employees’ participation in decision making (Al-Saleh & Ramadan, 2011).

These differences between management and employees may be seen as an indication of the

distance between the two groups. Managers thought that they provided enough support but

employees sought more.

Management support is a recurrent issue in the literature on patient safety in Saudi

Arabia. Walston and colleagues (2010) found that management support along with

adequate resources and proper reporting systems are the main influencers of patient safety.

These findings came from the use of a self-developed tool tested in four Saudi hospitals.

They found in their sample that Saudi public hospitals perform better than private hospitals

on the investigated measures (Walston et al., 2010). This contradicts Al-Ahmadi’s (2009)

findings of better overall patient safety grades in private hospitals (72.7% rated good or

excellent) compared to public hospitals (58.2%). One explanation for this is the differences

in measurement: Walston and colleagues (2010) used their own tool whereas Al-Ahmadi

(2009) drew his results from the ratings of overall patient safety question on the HSOPSC,

and reported that management role, communication and feedback about errors,

organisational learning and teamwork were the main contributors to the overall patient

safety score (Alahmadi, 2010).

Al-Ahmadi (2009) and Alahmadi (2010) conducted a study measuring attitudes

towards patient safety in 13 public and private hospitals in Riyadh. Organisational

learning, teamwork within units, and feedback and communication about errors were areas

of strength in the hospitals (Alahmadi, 2010). Non-punitive responses to errors, staffing

and teamwork across hospital units were areas with potential for improvement (Alahmadi,

2010). Similar results were reported by Aboshaiqah and Baker (2013) in a study using the

Literature Review 41
HSOPSC that sought to identify the factors perceived by nurses as contributing to patient

safety culture in one tertiary hospital in Riyadh. They found only two areas of strength,

organisational learning and management support; yet it is not clear if they were considered

to be factors contributing to patient safety culture (Aboshaiqah & Baker, 2013). Both

studies viewed null responses to reported errors in the past year as indication of a strong

under-reporting culture; this could be argued otherwise (Aboshaiqah & Baker, 2013;

Alahmadi, 2010). The existence of an under-reporting culture cannot be assumed solely on

the basis of self-reported, retrospective data. Both studies conceptually mixed patient

safety culture and under-reporting behaviour, assuming that each exists with the other.

Almutairi et al. (2013) used the SCS (21 items) to collect data from nurses in one

tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. They concluded that nurses perceived the safety climate

in their hospital as “unsafe” (Almutairi et al., 2013, p. 187). In addition, they found

significant differences in the perception of safety climate based on respondents’

nationalities, despite reporting having no information on more than half of the participants’

nationalities (n = 171, 53%). The SCS (17 items) was used by another study to compare

the perceptions of safety climate among nurses and physicians in different dialysis units,

with the study finding no significant differences (Taher et al., 2014).

Two studies investigated nurses’ attitudes towards safety culture using different

versions of the SAQ. Alayed et al. (2014) used the intensive care unit (ICU) version in six

ICUs while Zakari (2011) used the ambulatory version in four ambulatory units. In both

studies, participants displayed the most positive attitudes towards job satisfaction and the

lowest positive attitude towards the perception of management. Zakari (2011) finds

significant differences between staff nurses and nurse managers in all dimensions. Alayed

and colleagues (2014) concluded that all dimensions, including job satisfaction, need

improvement. Their respondents’ top recommendations for improving patient safety

Literature Review 42
include increased staffing levels and competence, better equipment, proper application of

guidelines, better teamwork and communication, and more managerial support.

2.13. Summary
Safety culture is an important aspect of patient safety. There are well validated tools

that can be used to measure safety culture but it is recommended that mixed methods are

used to fully understand its complexity in a wider cultural context, embracing both

organisational and national contexts. Reviewed studies indicate the strengths and weakness

of different methods for investigating patient safety; the study design, methodology and

methods were subsequently derived from this review and are discussed in later sections.

Literature Review 43
Chapter 3: Methodology
A mixed methods approach was chosen as the most appropriate approach to explore

a complex topic. Survey and semi-structured interviews were collected and analysed

sequentially, and findings from them were integrated to provide a holistic picture of the

current safety culture in operating theatres in Saudi Arabia.

3.1. Mixed methods approach

Quantitative research was the dominant methodology in the first half of the 20th

century (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). By the second half of the century, some

researchers started to consider whether social sciences might be better addressed through a

qualitative approach. Advocates of quantitative and qualitative research engaged in a

dispute called the paradigm war. Purists who believed in paradigm singularity emerged on

both sides; there were also those who advocated combining the approaches.

As the dispute evolved, researchers emerged who believed that each paradigm, with

its inherited methods, had strengths but also had weaknesses, and that the two should be

used in tandem and complement each other (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Campbell & Fiske,

1959; Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Sieber, 1973). In 1959 Campbell and Fiske introduced the

idea of triangulation, calling it “multiple operationalism”. They promoted the use of

different methods to answer the same question as a way of validating results. This

combination was also promoted in Sieber’s (1973) work, which argued for the use of

fieldwork and surveys in the same study. In 1979 Cook and Reichardt published a book

proposing different ways of combining quantitative and qualitative data. An entire issue of

the American Behavioral Scientist was devoted to mixed methods research (Rossman &

Wilson, 1985). In the 1980s mixed methods research was recognised as a distinct approach

Methodology 44
linked to the pragmatic paradigm (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Morse, 1991;

Rossman & Wilson, 1985).

The call to mix methods and paradigms from the opposing quantitative and

qualitative approaches divided researchers on the question of how knowledge is derived

from the world. Rossman and Wilson (1985) published a classification of researchers’

perspectives about mixed methods research on a continuum of three: purists, situationalists

and pragmatists. At one end are the purists, who believe that quantitative and qualitative

paradigms derive from fundamentally and totally different epistemological and ontological

assumptions and thus cannot be mixed (Guba, 1990; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Smith, 1983;

Smith & Heshusius, 1986). Purists argue that the different paradigms’ embedded

assumptions about the nature of knowledge and what is important to know are

incompatible: this is termed the ‘incompatibility thesis’. Purists believe in the dichotomy

of research paradigms. Situationalists occupy the middle ground. While they maintain the

purists’ perspective of paradigm integrity, they allow the use of different paradigms in a

single study, driven by specific situations or phases of the research (Kidder & Fine, 1987;

Rossman & Wilson, 1985). Situationalists claim that each question or research phase

should be addressed by one or the other method. Despite their advocacy of the use of

different methods within a single study, they do not support integration. Pragmatists

believe that methods are independent of research paradigms and argue for integrating them

to best answer particular research questions (Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). They

support the use and integration of different methods to address an issue or question.

Since the late 1980s a new movement promoting mixed methods research has

developed alongside quantitative and qualitative approaches, and variously described as

the third path (Gorard & Taylor, 2004); the third research paradigm (Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004); and the third methodological movement (Tashakkori & Teddlie,

Methodology 45
2003). Recently, with a growing number of researchers using mixed methods research, it

has been referred to as the third research community (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) promote the view that even though

mixed methods research is not a new practice, its approach is a new movement and a

developing paradigm (p. 113). As this new movement has grown, the literature has

expanded, offering different definitions, designs and elements that constitute the approach

and to try to reach consensus among researchers. In their effort to come up with a

comprehensive definition of mixed methods research, Johnson and colleagues (2007)

identified 36 leading researchers in mixed methods and asked them to define it. Nineteen

responses proved that definitions were diverse in terms of what is mixed (e.g., paradigms

vs. methods); at what stage of a design mixing is carried out (e.g., the analysis stage vs. the

interpretation stage); and the purpose and orientation of mixing (e.g., confirmation vs.

exploration). Johnson and colleagues argue that such differences are healthy and should be

embraced: as well as differences, they also note significant areas of homogeneity. For

example, there was agreement that mixed methods research incorporates both qualitative

and quantitative data and is undertaken for the breadth and depth of understanding of any

given research problem. The great benefit of their study is that it sheds light on leading

researchers’ understanding and practice. It also indicates the great flexibility of mixed

methods research. The most comprehensive definition found is that of Plano Clark and

Creswell, that:

Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as

well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical

assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the

mixture of qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its

central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in

Methodology 46
 combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either

approach alone. (2007, p. 5)

This definition emphasises the enhanced understanding of research problems the

use of mixed methods research offers. In this current study a mixed methods approach has

been chosen to answer the research questions as it is considered most suitable for a topic as

complex as patient safety research (Battles & Lilford, 2003; Brown et al., 2008;

Guldenmund, 2007; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011; Morgan, 2007; Runciman et al., 2008).

3.1.1. Pragmatism and mixed methods research

Creswell (2003, p. 6) indicates that knowledge claims are the assumptions that

researchers have about “how, and what, they will learn”. Researchers ideally end at a

different level of understanding than where they began (Morse & Niehaus, 2009). Stating a

knowledge claim makes it easier to follow the discovery of new knowledge and to validate

(Plano Clark & Creswell, 2011) the findings. This transition in knowledge is usually

guided by epistemological assumptions about what counts as knowledge; and by ontology,

relating to the nature of knowledge and reality. Post-positivism and constructivism are

popular examples of philosophical worldviews, generally associated with quantitative and

qualitative approaches respectively. Pragmatism is often considered the most common

stance or position driving knowledge claims in mixed methods research (Creswell, 2003;

Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), claimed to be the “most

useful philosophy to support mixed methods research” (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 121).

Pragmatism was formulated based on the work of late 19th and early 20th century

American philosophers such as Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James

(1842–1910), George Mead (1863–1931) and John Dewey (1859–1952). Peirce was the

founder of the pragmatism theory, which was developed and formulated in the work of

James and later by Dewey (Rorty, 1982). Peirce, James’s and Dewey’s work led to the

Methodology 47
notion that instead of letting one’s understanding of an idea be driven by a philosophy or

paradigm, ideas should be evaluated on their practical and empirical consequences

(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Murphy, 1990). Unlike other paradigms or world views

such as post-positivism, where the antecedents’ assumptions drive the understanding of an

issue, pragmatism focuses on the issue and its consequences to drive the inquiry (Creswell,

2014). Several writers have discussed the development of pragmatism and its use in mixed

methods research (Cherryholmes, 1992; Creswell, 2003, 2014; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,

2004; Murphy, 1990; Patton, 1990; Rorty, 1990; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010, 2003;

Teddlie & Johnson, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Pragmatism as a philosophical

assumption employed in mixed methods research is next discussed.

Pragmatism in mixed methods research evolves around the importance of the

research questions and, in turn, drives the choice of method that best addresses the research

problem rather than being restricted by the philosophical underpinning of either (Rossman

& Wilson, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). While pragmatists have been accused of

falsifying the dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Newman & Benz,

1998) and advocate integrating different methods within a single study (Creswell, 2003),

Sieber (1973) argues that just as quantitative and qualitative approaches have strengths,

they also have weaknesses that can be overcome by mixing them in a single study where

they complement each other. Based on the work of Cherryholmes (1992), Creswell (2014),

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), Morgan (2007), Patton (1990) and Rorty (1990), this

research draws on three characteristics, keeping in mind the risk of over-simplifying the

philosophy, to summarise the important assumptions of pragmatism and their application

in mixed methods research.

First, pragmatism neither follows one philosophy nor attains any superiority of a

single assumption. It rejects the duality of assumptions and seeks the middle ground to

draw from the strengths of opposing assumptions, and allows them to complement each

Methodology 48
other’s weaknesses. It sanctions dualism even with opposing assumptions such as

subjectivity and objectivity. As a result, researchers are free to choose what works to best

answer their research questions.

Second, pragmatism assumes that subjective and objective assumptions are

important aspects in understanding a certain phenomenon or problem. It recognises that

social and political contexts, among others, shape experiences and beliefs and play an

important role in research. Knowledge is constructed from the reality in which we live.

Research should be driven by consequences and follow the formation of experience by

testing what works and solves the problem, or at least answers the questions at hand.

Third, we are finding a provisional truth, not the ultimate one, and the world is not

in unanimity. In fact, pragmatism assumes there are two worlds, one independent of the

mind and one within the mind. Those two worlds should not be assumed to follow certain

laws or reality. What we understand now may be different in the future.

Schools or positions within pragmatic philosophy have started to emerge (Teddlie

& Tashakkori, 2012). For example, the dialectical position advocates the use of multiple

paradigms within a single study (Greene, 2007). The transformative paradigm advocates

the intertwining of research and politics to transform policies governing the studied issues

(Mertens, 2010). It is too early to think of those positions as separate philosophies, and

pragmatism is still widely respected as the philosophy driving mixed methods research

(Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2012).

Mixed methods research employing pragmatic philosophical assumptions allows

researchers to use what best addresses their concerns or research problems, whether from

quantitative or qualitative assumptions, methods and procedures. With the great flexibility

of mixed methods research comes great complexity in designing the study.

Methodology 49
 3.1.2. Patient safety and mixed methods research
Quantitative surveys have been the dominant research tool for investigating patient

safety (Guldenmund, 2007; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011; Jackson et al., 2010). Other

methods have been given lower weight compared to quantitative methods (Runciman et al.,

2008). Several authors have argued for the need to combine both quantitative and

qualitative methods and approaches to investigate patient safety (Battles & Lilford, 2003;

Brown et al., 2008; Brown & Lilford, 2008; Guldenmund, 2007; Halligan & Zecevic,

2011; Jeffcott & Mackenzie, 2008; Runciman et al., 2008; Shekelle et al., 2011;

Wahlström & Rollenhagen, 2009).

Halligan and Zecevic’s (2011) review of 139 studies of safety culture in health care

finds that only 14 use qualitative approaches. They conclude that surveys should be

combined with qualitative methods such as interviews to provide more understanding of

safety culture in health care. A similar recommendation is made by Runciman and

colleagues (2008) in their commentary on the epistemology of patient safety. They argue

the need for a pragmatic approach utilising quantitative and qualitative methods along with

retrospective, real-time and prospective designs. Years before these recommendations, the

use of mixed methods was strongly advocated by Battles and Lilford (2003), arguing that

patient safety is a complex issue and single method research cannot identify risks and

hazards. It was suggested that for more understanding of risks in patient safety, methods

should be combined to complement each other.

The quality of methods and methodologies used in researching patient safety has

concerned the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom. They argue that patient

safety research is a complex issue that benefits greatly from a pragmatic philosophy and a

mixed methods approach (Brown et al., 2008). Mixed methods research is considered the

best approach as it improves the ability to contextualise findings in complex settings such

as patient safety (Brown & Lilford, 2008). Wahlström and Rollenhagen (2009) argue for a

Methodology 50
connection between people’s attitudes, beliefs and values and the culture of safety in an

organisation. One of their recommendations is to use surveys for the identification of

issues that can be later investigated in more depth, such as by using semi-structured

interviews.

The current research problem and questions are best addressed by employing mixed

methods research with a pragmatic philosophical approach, as advocated by Plano Clark

and Creswell (2011), Rossman and Wilson (1985) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003), to

unravel the complexity of patient safety culture in operating theatres, in a Saudi Arabian

context.

3.2. Design
3.2.1. Mixed methods designs
As mixed methods research is initially the result of combining quantitative and

qualitative approaches and methods, several combinations have been created and promoted

by researchers. Books and articles have been published about different ways to combine

quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Cook &

Reichardt, 1979; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Morse, 1991; Rossman & Wilson, 1985). This

plethora of designs has been recognised by several researchers who, in turn, have reviewed

the way that researchers mix their methods (Caracelli & Greene, 1997; Greene et al., 1989;

Morgan, 2007; Östlund, Kidd, Wengström, & Rowa-Dewar, 2011; Rossman & Wilson,

1985).

Greene et al.’s (1989) publication was the first to classify designs based on

reviewing the employed designs of antecedents’ mixed methods research. Based on their

review of 57 empirical mixed methods research studies, they divided the designs into five

categories based on the purpose of the approach. Those categories were: triangulation,

complementarity, development, initiation and expansion (see Table 3.1)

Methodology 51
Table 3.1: Five mixed methods designs
Purpose Rationale
Design
Seeks convergence, corroboration, To increase the validity of constructs
Triangulation
correspondence of results from the and inquiry results by counteracting or
different methods. maximising the heterogeneity of
irrelevant sources of variance
attributable especially to inherent
method bias but also to inquirer bias,
bias of substantive theory and biases of
inquiry context.
Seeks elaboration, enhancement, To increase the interpretability,
Complementarity
illustration and clarification of the meaningfulness and validity of
results from one method with the constructs and inquiry results by both
results from the other method. capitalising on inherent method
strengths and counteracting inherent
biases in methods and other sources.
Seeks to use the results from one To increase the validity of constructs
Development
method to help develop or inform and inquiry results by capitalising on
the other method, where inherent method strengths.
development is broadly construed
to include sampling and
implementation as well as
measurement decisions.
Seeks the discovery of paradox To increase the breadth and depth of
Initiation
and contradiction, new inquiry results and interpretations by
perspectives of frameworks and analysing them from the perspectives of
the recasting of questions or different methods and paradigms.
results from one method with
questions or results from the other
method.
Seeks to extend the breadth and To increase the scope of inquiry by
Expansion
range of inquiry by using different selecting the methods most appropriate
methods for different inquiry for multiple inquiry components.
components.
Source: adapted from (Greene et al., 1989)

As mixed methods research has become more popular, different designs have

emerged. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) indicate that more than 40 mixed methods

designs are reported in the literature. Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann and Hanson (2003)

identify the most popular six designs. Those fall into two groups, sequential and

concurrent, based on the type and time of data collection and data integration. Those

designs are then classified into two levels, basic mixed methods, and advanced or complex

(Creswell, 2014). The complex designs are mainly combinations of the basic ones. The

three basic designs, explained as the basic elements of research designs in mixed methods,

Methodology 52
are convergent parallel mixed methods design, exploratory sequential mixed methods

design and explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Figure 4).

The convergent parallel mixed methods design is the most familiar (Creswell,

2014). It uses different methods to confirm that the obtained results are of greater

applicability to diverse populations. Different methods are used to complement each other:

both quantitative and qualitative data about the same dimensions are collected at the same

time and the results are compared and confirmed, which may reveal convergence or

divergence in the results. Both results are integrated at the discussion phase of the study.

The exploratory sequential mixed methods design is most useful for developing

better measurement by identifying the domains or factors that need to be measured

(Creswell, 2014). It is more applicable for research in relatively new fields where

important issues need to be identified. It starts with the collection and analysis of

qualitative data, which influence the development of the quantitative data collection and

analysis. While the results are mainly integrated at the interpretation phase, they also

connect at the earlier stage as the results of the first study inform the data collection in the

second phase.

In contrast to the exploratory sequential mixed methods design is the explanatory

sequential mixed methods design which is considered the most straightforward of the

mixed methods research designs (Creswell et al., 2003). It is characterised by the use of a

quantitative data collection and analysis phase followed by an in-depth qualitative data

collection and analysis phase; the latter is used to gain more understanding of the

significant issues raised in the former. The strength of this design is that it provides an in-

depth understanding of unexpected issues or significant differences that are raised from

investigating the general population of the study. In a fashion similar to the exploratory

sequential design, the results of the first study inform the second study and the main

integration of the results takes place in the interpretation phase. This design has been

Methodology 53
advocated as applicable to fields dominated by the quantitative approach and methods

(Creswell, 2014) such as patient safety (Wahlström & Rollenhagen, 2009).

Figure 4: Three basic mixed methods designs (Creswell, 2014, p. 220)

3.2.2. Employed design

Following a pragmatic philosophy, the explanatory sequential mixed methods

design was chosen as the best approach to investigate the research problem at hand. It was

used to guide the process of collecting and analysing the data and present the results and

findings. Plano Clark and Creswell (2011) argue that mixed methods research is

challenging and designs should be used based on their specific advantages. The

explanatory sequential mixed methods design was employed for this study because it is

more applicable for fields dominated by quantitative research (Creswell, 2014). Patient

safety research has been dominated by surveys (Battles & Lilford, 2003; Guldenmund,

2007; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011). This design builds on what others have achieved using

Methodology 54
surveys and provides more understanding, through semi-structured interviews, of

significant issues. In other words, it allows different methods to complement each other. It

uses the survey to identify significant issues or certain groups from the general population

of the study. It then uses the interviews to provide more understanding of those issues

(Figure 5).

Plano Clark and Creswell (2011) identify four aspects of design in mixed methods

research that need to be explicitly discussed: a) the level of interaction between

quantitative and qualitative methods and results; b) the priority of the methods; c) the

timing of the implementation; and d) the integration of the results.

Interaction
This aspect is concerned with the level of interaction between quantitative and

qualitative data collection, analysis and results. Both studies may be totally separate from

each other until the interpretation of the results, as in convergent, parallel mixed methods

design, or they could have earlier interaction. For this study there were two stages at which

interaction occurred: at the formation of the second study, as it was informed by the results

of the first study; and at the stage of interpretation, where both sets of result were

integrated. This was a consequence of the nature of the employed design where the second

phase built on the first.

Priority
Priority relates to the emphasis or relative weighting given to the quantitative and

qualitative components of the study. The priority could be equal or weighted towards one

over the other. In this study, both quantitative and qualitative components have equal

weighting and priority. They both took almost the same amount of time to plan, conduct

and analyse. In addition, both contributed equally to the findings.

Methodology 55
 Timing
Timing is concerned with when various methods are employed within research. A

decision had to be made about whether data were to be collected sequentially or

concurrently. If collected sequentially, which method comes first? The study used

sequential implementation, with the quantitative data collected and analysed in the first

phase followed by the qualitative data being collected and analysed in the second phase.

Integration
This aspect refers to the synthesis or mixing of data, which might occur at any stage

of the research: during data collection, analysis or at the interpretation of results. Both

quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed separately in this study.

Integration took place at the level of the interpretation of results. As has been noted, the

results of the first phase informed the second phase’s data collection; this is considered

interaction rather than integration.

Semi-structured Integration
Survey interviews
Data collection and Data collection and Discussion
analysis analysis

Figure 5: Sequence and weight of methods used in the current study employing explanatory
sequential mixed methods design.

Methodology 56
3.3. Summary
In this chapter, it is argued that mixed methods design, underpinned by pragmatism,

is the most appropriate approach to explore complex topics such as safety culture. This

study was designed to collect two sets of data, survey and interviews, in an effort to get a

broad and deep understanding of safety culture in operating theatres in Saudi Arabia.

Methodology 57
Chapter 4: Methods
This chapter presents the methods used for data collection and analysis for both

phases of the study. It is divided into two sections: the first section introduces the

quantitative method (survey) used for the first phase and the second section presents the

qualitative method (interview) used for the second phase.

4.1. Quantitative method

4.1.1. Design
Phase I of this study used a cross-sectional survey to collect quantitative data from

the participants through self-administered questionnaires. These are useful in descriptive or

exploratory studies such as this one where the researchers are interested in participants’

opinions of the safety climate in operating theatres (De Vaus, 2001; Nardi, 2003). A cross-

sectional design involves the collection of data once at a certain point in time (Polit &

Beck, 2004). Collecting a structured set of data is crucial in cross-sectional designs

because it permits systematic comparison and aggregation of results (De Vaus, 2001).

Using the same instrument to collect data from multiple cases is the basis of the analysis of

cross-sectional designs.

4.1.2. Advantages and disadvantages of self-administered

questionnaires
Even though data could be collected from methods such as face-to-face interviews

and observations, there are advantages to using self-administered questionnaires. These

gather the required information from a large number of participants in a cost-effective and

timely manner (Gorard, 2003). They are easy to implement, especially in large studies (De

Vaus, 2001) and Gorard (2003) claims, enhance the confidentiality and anonymity of

respondents, while the absence of the researcher encourages truthful answers. Nardi (2003)

Methods 58
summarises four advantages of using self-administered questionnaires as follows: 1)

measuring issues with numerous variables; 2) measuring variables that are not usually

observable; 3) describing the characteristics of large populations; and 4) studying issues

that are highly sensitive and difficult for participants to discuss openly.

Ambiguously worded questions or inconclusive results are of great concern in self-

administered questionnaires (De Vaus, 2001). These can be avoided with careful design

and testing of the questionnaire to be used (by pilot testing and expert consultations). A

low response rate is the main drawback of self-administered questionnaires; however, well-

designed questionnaires usually have almost the same response rate as other data collection

methods (Dillman, 2000; Gorard, 2003). Given that the design of the questionnaires plays

an important role in the response rate and the results’ accuracy, it was carefully considered.

4.1.3. Tool development

The questionnaire that was used for collecting data from participants in Phase I was

carefully designed to elicit answers the research questions and went through several stages

of preparation. After deciding on the field of study and research questions, the patient

safety climate was critically reviewed. Other questions that were expected to assist in

answering some of the fundamental research questions were added. All questions were

continuously revised. Permission to modify and use the SAQ was sought from one of the

authors of the original climate, namely R. Helmreich (2011), and was granted via email.

When agreement was reached on the final elements of the questionnaire, a rigorous process

of translation was conducted. Subject, field, research and linguistic experts were consulted

on the final version of the questionnaire. Finally, the questionnaire was pilot tested.

Comments from the research supervisors, field and language experts and the pilot test were

encouraged, and suggestions were incorporated. The questionnaire went through the stages

of preparation, translation and the pilot test.

Methods 59
 4.1.4. Research questionnaire design
The final version of the questionnaire consisted of four parts: demographic

information, safety climate, communication ratings and open-ended questions. The

majority of the questions were taken from the SAQ and others were added as required by

the research questions and research focus as detailed in the following sub-headings

(Appendix 1).

Demographic information
This part consisted of the basic demographic information: gender, age, nationality,

language spoken at home, job, years of professional experience, and years of experience in

the hospital from which data were collected.

Patient safety climate

This section included 38 closed-ended questions. It used a 5-point Likert scale with

responses of strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree.

The safety climate from the SAQ was used in this part. It consists of a 30-item scale

intended to measure six dimensions: teamwork climate (6 items), safety climate (7 items),

job satisfaction (5 items), stress recognition (4 items), perception of management (4 items)

and working conditions (4 items).

Eight new elements were added to this section, mainly to explore the effects of the

local culture on the safety culture in operating theatres. The researcher’s experience in

operating theatres with a multinational workforce created interest in exploring some of

those issues. Two items addressed gender; three addressed cultural difference; one

addressed working consecutive night shifts; one addressed communication of new policies;

and one addressed patients’ disclosure of important medical history.

Methods 60
 Quality of communication ratings
This question asked each respondent to indicate the quality of communication

experienced with other professionals in performing their most recent surgical procedure.

The professionals consulted were surgeons, anaesthetists, operating theatre nurses,

anaesthesia technicians, surgical technicians, support staff (e.g., receptionists and

cleaners), ward nurses, recovery personnel, ICU personnel and others that respondents

might recommend. The respondents were given six responses to rate the quality of

communication: very low, low, adequate, high, very high and not applicable, in light of the

fact that not all types of operation required all of those professions to attend.

This question was based on a modified version of the SAQ. One question originally

pertained to the rating of communication and collaboration. This was seen as a dual and

possibly confusing question; communication and collaboration are important but separate

elements of teamwork. A person could be an excellent communicator who preferred

working alone, or a great team member with limited communication skills. This was

reworded to focus on the quality of communication. Another question asked about the

quality of communication and collaboration within a certain profession but did not specify

a time limit. It was changed to specify communication in the latest surgery, given that the

teams in operating theatres are dynamic. Specifying the quality of communication in the

latest surgery created the need for another category of responses – not applicable – as it

could not be assumed that communication would be carried out with all the listed

professions in a single surgery.

Open-ended questions
Two open-ended questions were added to the questionnaire. One question asked

about the effect of Saudi culture on patient safety, in the hope of exploring aspects of Saudi

culture that members of a multinational staff might believe affect patient safety. The other

question asked about ways to improve patient safety in the respondents’ workplace based

Methods 61
on their experience. In addition to those two questions, the respondents were given space to

make any comments that they wished.

Overall patient safety

Respondents were asked to assign a patient safety grade to their department.

Respondents were given five choices: failing, poor, acceptable, good and excellent. This

question appears in both the SAQ and the HSOPSC instruments.

Language used to answer

The final version of the questionnaire was in two languages on a single form (see

the next sub-section, “Translation”). A question was added asking respondents to indicate

the language they used in answering the questionnaire. This question was added to assess

the quality of translation.

Translation
The data were collected in an Arabic-speaking country. English is used in Saudi

Arabia as a second language, mainly by multinational workers who do not speak Arabic

(Walston et al., 2010). The official language in the MOH’s hospitals is English; however,

Arabic can be spoken only (Tumulty, 2001). The questionnaire (in English language) was

translated into Arabic, and both versions were incorporated into a single form. This was

done to accommodate the majority of the research population and to convey a sense of

cultural understanding and sensitivity to the respondents. The questionnaire went through

rigorous translation and validation. The research supervisors were consulted at every step

of the validation and their comments were integrated into the final draft.

The researcher translated the final English language of the questionnaire into

Arabic. The researcher’s mother tongue is Arabic and he speaks English fluently, and has

obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees in English-speaking countries. The Arabic

Methods 62
version of the questionnaire was then back-translated into English by two field experts and

one expert in linguistics.

The first expert has worked in the operating theatres of different hospitals in Riyadh

for more than 18 years. His native language is Arabic and he speaks English fluently. He

earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from English-speaking countries and was

completing his PhD in Australia at the time of translation. The second expert has worked in

operating theatres in several hospitals in Riyadh for more than 11 years. His native

language is Arabic and he speaks English fluently: his undergraduate degree was obtained

in Australia. He earned a Master’s degree in quality and safety from Saudi Arabia. At the

time of translation he was working in the Quality and Safety Department in a large hospital

in Riyadh. This role gave him broad knowledge about research in safety in Saudi Arabia to

add to his familiarity with the operating theatre.

The Arabic version of the questionnaire was sent to each expert for back-translation

into English. After receiving the back-translation, the translator’s comments were

investigated and the questionnaire modified accordingly. Both English and Arabic versions

of the final questionnaire were returned to each expert for review, and their feedback was

again discussed and incorporated as necessary.

In recognition of the importance of translation accuracy, a linguist was consulted, a

Saudi national lecturing at a Saudi university. He received his PhD from a university in

Australia and had expertise in English–Arabic translations. As with the field experts,

comments from the linguistic expert were discussed with the supervisors and changes were

made as needed.

Both Arabic and English versions of the questionnaire were incorporated into a

single form. English is written from left to right: Arabic is written from right to left. The

researcher took advantage of this distinction by reserving the left half of the page for

English questions and the right side for the same questions in Arabic. In other words, both

Methods 63
Arabic and English versions of each question are on the same line of the page with only

one possible answer for each question. To prevent the respondents from becoming

confused and replicating their answers, only one space (or choice) was provided for each

question. This was arranged by using the centre of the line for the possible answer on the

five-point Likert scale, regardless of whether the respondent read it in English or in Arabic.

Therefore, if a respondent was reading an item in English, the choices lay just after the

item, and the same for respondents who read the same item in Arabic (Appendix 1).

Combining English and Arabic in the same form ensured that a respondent did not

answer two questionnaires and corrupt the data. In addition, it made the distribution of the

questionnaires easier.

Pilot test
The final questionnaire was pilot tested in a hospital in Riyadh City. The pilot

respondents included three surgeons, three anaesthetists, three nurses and three anaesthesia

technicians. A minimum of one male and one female from each group was included in the

pilot to reflect the settings where data were collected. The researcher also made sure that at

least one member of each group answered in Arabic and one in English. The researcher

asked each respondent to keep track of the amount of the time taken to complete the

questionnaire. The researcher then sat with each respondent and asked about the clarity and

difficulty of the questions and how well they were understood. Their comments were

considered and changes were made where necessary. This process was to ensure that there

was no room for misinterpretation by respondents of different genders or professions. In

addition, the researcher wanted to make sure that the questions were easy to understand for

all respondents.

Methods 64
 4.1.5. Research population
This study targeted health care workers in operating theatres at the MOH’s general

hospitals in Riyadh City. At the time of data collection, the MOH managed two medical

cities, two general hospitals and one women’s and children’s hospital in Riyadh City

(Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Overview of participating sites

Year established # of operating
Site
theatres
1985 6
Site A (264-bed general hospital)
1987 4
Site B (200-bed general hospital)
1987 8
Site C (310-bed women & children’s hospital)
1400-bed medical city with two different operating
theatre departments (site D and E):
1956 13
Site D (General hospital)
1977 8
Site E (Maternity & children’s hospitals)
2004 30
Site F (1095-bed Medical city)
Note: information collected from different sources (High Commission for the Development of
Arriyadh, 2011; King Fahad Medical City, 2011; King Saud Medical City, 2011; Mufti, 2000).

The study was designed for those professionals who could be expected to attend

each operation, in order to obtain more generalisable results. Each operation usually has a

minimum of one surgeon, one anaesthetist, one anaesthesia technician and two operating

theatre nurses (including surgical technicians). These four groups were the target

population of this study.

Sample and sampling

Sampling the population is recommended if the total population cannot be

surveyed. For this study, the entire population was included in order to compare groups.

Before the collection of the data, the number of possible participants was obtained from

each one of the targeted four departments in each hospital. The total population of the

study was 1,068 potential respondents in the targeted hospitals. Surgeons represent 36.2%

Methods 65
(n = 387) and nurses 42.8% (n = 457). Anaesthetists and anaesthesia technicians

represented 10.1% (n = 108) and 10.9% (n = 116) of the study population, respectively.

4.1.6. Data collection

After gaining the required ethical approval from all concerned organisations (see

section 4.1.8 for details about ethics), the researcher approached each head of department

to request assistance in distributing the questionnaire and in encouraging participation.

With the consent of the department head, the researcher was introduced and given 5-10

minutes at the end of the weekly departmental meeting to talk about the study. The

researcher introduced the study, the questionnaire and the participation process, and

distributed the questionnaire to all attendees. Each prospective participant was given a

questionnaire, information sheet and a return envelope. Each department head was asked to

have the completed questionnaires returned to the department secretary. The secretaries

were asked about the number of prospective participants who had not attended the

meeting; these people were sent a copy of the questionnaire and the information sheet, and

a return envelope, through the hospital’s internal mail system.

Two reminders were provided two weeks apart. As with the distribution process,

the researcher was given three minutes at department meetings to encourage participation

and to thank the respondents who had returned the questionnaires. Each department head

was also asked to encourage faculty participation. Questionnaires were not given out in the

reminder meetings to prevent anyone from returning more than one questionnaire.

4.1.7. Data analysis

The quantitative data were analysed using SPSS version 19 (IBM, 2012). The

researcher entered and checked all of the data for outliers and missing values. The

following rules were followed in dealing with missing data:

Methods 66
 1. Any case with more than two missing values on the same dimension of the

safety climate was excluded from the analysis for that dimension.

2. Any case with two dimensions not analysed was deleted from the data set.

A response rate of 60 or more was considered representative of a culture/climate

(Sexton et al., 2006a).

Results were subjected to descriptive and inferential tests. Demographic results

were presented descriptively; whereas, the original scale, new items and quality of

communication ratings were subjected to inferential testing. Different inferential tests were

introduced and discussed in the results chapter (chapter 5) whenever they were used.

Answers to the open-ended questions were analysed using NVivo version 9 (QSR

International Pty Ltd., 2012). Responses to each question with the respondent’s gender,

age, profession and site were entered into the program for analysis. Themes were extracted

and associated with the other factors.

4.1.8. Ethical considerations

Ethical approval from all concerned parties was obtained and the researcher

complied with their specifications (Appendices 2 and 3). The researcher also anticipated

the ethical challenges that could arise during the course of the study and prepared a

contingency plan (Polit & Beck, 2004).

The study was anonymous and responses were linked only to the department, not to

individuals. It was linked to departments to explore their climate. In addition, participation

was voluntary and a participant information sheet (PIS) accompanied each questionnaire.

The PIS explained the study and its ethical considerations (Appendix 1).

Participants were informed that returned questionnaires implied informed consent to

participate according to the information outlined in the PIS, and that they could withdraw

from the study at any stage without any consequences. The participants were also informed

Methods 67
of what was required of them. The researcher’s contact details were included in case

participants needed to discuss any issue concerning the study. Although the study was low

risk, possible associated risks were anticipated and counselling contacts were obtained, to

be provided if needed.

The data were kept secure, with access limited to the researcher and his supervisors

to protect the privacy of the participants. Hard copies of the data were stored in a secured,

locked cabinet. Soft copies were kept in password-protected computers. The data will be

kept for five years after which they will be destroyed according to the governing

guidelines.

4.2. Qualitative method

4.2.1. Qualitative research
Following the sequential mixed methods design, the qualitative method was used in

the second phase of the study. Qualitative research is interpretive, emergent and evolving,

taking place in natural settings and focusing on context by employing different methods in

a humane way (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). It is concerned with deep understanding of social

issues that affect the social context and human interactions and behaviours (Creswell,

2014). Merriam (2009, p. 5) indicates that “qualitative researchers are interested in

understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and

what meaning they attribute to their experiences”. Maxwell provides a similar definition by

defining qualitative research as

research that is intended to help you better understand (1) the meanings and

perspectives of the people you study—seeing the world from their point of view,

rather than simply from your own; (2) how these perspectives are shaped by, and

shape, their physical, social, and cultural contexts; and (3) the specific processes

Methods 68
 that are involved in maintaining or altering these phenomena and relationships.

(2012, p. viii)

It is difficult to define qualitative research. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) argue that

the difficulties in doing so indicate that it would be more appropriate to characterise

qualitative research than to define it. Marshall and Rossman (2011, p. 2) provide one of the

most holistic characteristics of qualitative research, indicating that it is “pragmatic,

interpretive, and grounded in the lived experiences of people”.

One of the important characteristics of qualitative research is the use of the

researcher as a primary tool or instrument (Creswell, 2013; Hatch, 2002; Lincoln & Guba,

1985; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). This intensifies the importance of the role that the

researcher plays in all elements and processes of qualitative research. The subjectivity of

this type of research necessitates the establishment of the concept of trustworthiness (Cho

& Trent, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness is discussed at the end of this

section after the presentation of the method used to collect and analyse qualitative data.

Qualitative research methods are defined by Schensul (2012, p. 85) as “the tools

qualitative researchers use to investigate their research topic and construct their argument

and the decisions they make as to how to use those tools and with whom”. The tools share

characteristics that have been discussed in the methodology and methods literature: they

include settings, sampling, methods of data collection and analysis, ethical considerations

and trustworthiness of the findings.

Semi-structured interviews
Individual semi-structured interviews in a private room at the participants’

workplaces were the main method used for the collection of qualitative data. Semi-

structured interviews are seen as a suitable method for collecting data as they enable

Methods 69
participants to elaborate on issues that are raised. Participants were asked to reflect on the

issues in their own words, which provided more credibility and face validity for the data.

Interviews in general have been described as “a particular kind of conversation”

(Green & Thorogood, 2004, p. 79) and as “literally an inter view, an inter change of views

between two persons” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 2). Patton (2002) indicates that there

are three types of interview, ranging from unstructured or conversational to very structured

or standardised. Between these polar opposites lies the semi-structured interview (pp. 341–

347). Semi-structured interviews are the most popular data-generating method in

qualitative research, and specifically in qualitative health research (Green & Thorogood,

2004; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). They are seen as cooperation between the researcher

and the participant. While the researcher brings certain topics to the interview for

discussion, the participant’s responses actually determine the type and relative importance

of the constructed knowledge (Green & Thorogood, 2004). Semi-structured interviews are

used to acquire respondents’ perceptions and reflections on certain topics which guide the

interviews (Merriam, 2009) They are progressive in nature, and new questions and topics

may emerge and be investigated in a single interview or in subsequent ones (Hansen,

2006); this characteristic was considered important for the second phase of this study. As

each interview progressed, new questions emerged that helped in developing more

understanding of the issues under discussion.

As this part of the research was influenced by the first phase, open-ended questions,

which were guided by the results of the first component, were used. The interviewer used

prompted questions to encourage respondents to provide enough depth of the discussed

topics to explore some of the issues that the interviewee mentioned in the course of the

interview.

Only one interview was conducted with each participant. The interviews were face-

to-face and lasted an average of 45 minutes. The interview guide consisted of core

Methods 70
questions to allow respondents to explain their views and experiences, and prompt

questions used to explore more of the discussed points (Appendix 4). Participants’

interpersonal elements (e.g., whether they were relaxed, not feeling well, nervous, or not

willing to share their experiences) were noted. Notes were taken during and after the

interview and were used in the analysis process. The researcher also kept a reflective

journal throughout the process of data collection and analysis. A digital audio recording

device was used to record the interviews, with a second recording device as a back-up.

Interviews were conducted in English, the official language used in MOH hospitals.

The researcher started the interview by introducing himself and the study. He then

went through the consent form, reading and explaining each element. This was done to

make sure that the respondents had understood the consent form and any concerns could be

addressed. Once the participant was satisfied and willing to take part, the consent form was

signed and obtained by the researcher. At the end of the interview, the researcher recapped

the issues that had been discussed to confirm his understanding of the participant’s point of

view. This was done to increase the rigour of the study as the researcher confirmed his

understanding of the issues the participant had discussed.

The study employed the saturation process to decide the number of participants:

interviews continued until there was no new information uncovered in new interviews

(Charmaz, 2006).

4.2.2. Data collection

Sample and sampling

Marshall and Rossman (2011) argue the importance of sampling decisions in

improving the trustworthiness and rigour of a study. However, because of the exploratory

nature of qualitative research, researchers may enter the field without knowing the sample

or having a solid sampling strategy (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Employing the mixed

Methods 71
methods approach, where the first phase informs the second one, helps in the choice of

sample and sampling techniques. In addition, the choice of the sample and sampling

techniques is influenced by the theoretical framework (Denzin, 1989).

Stratified purposive sampling was used for the qualitative phase. This procedure

had two parts, as its name implies: stratified and purposive. While the first phase of the

study targeted all the operating theatre personnel in anaesthesia and surgery, the results

indicated that responses from one group, namely surgical nurses, were statistically

significantly different from other groups. The sample for the second phase of the study was

stratified to include only this group. Stratification was considered important to focus on the

group that could best enrich the study about basic cultural assumptions, as informed by the

results of survey.

A purposive sample is mainly created by the selection of participants who are

thought to be information-rich, in order to construct a deep and holistic understanding of

issues under investigation (Burns & Grove, 2005; Patton, 2002). Nurses with a minimum

of one year’s experience in operating theatres were thought to be able to reflect on the

deeper level of both the organisational and safety cultures.

Within the purposive sampling framework, the critical case sampling approach was

employed to select cases that were thought to be sufficiently sophisticated to construct

knowledge about the relevant issues (Patton, 1990). One of the advantages of critical case

sampling is the transferability of the constructed knowledge to other cases (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). The results of the first phase, following the explanatory sequential

mixed methods research design, helped in identifying suitable critical cases for the second

phase of data collection. It was used as magnifying lenses to identify participants for the

second phase. Non-Saudi female nurses who did not speak Arabic, the Saudi Arabian

national language, with a minimum experience in Saudi Arabia of one year, were chosen

from two sites as the critical cases for the second phase.

Methods 72
 The non-Arabic-speaking female nurses had not been raised in Saudi Arabia and

had not been exposed to Saudi culture until later in life; their understandings were not

shaped by Saudi culture. Nevertheless, they were expected to have had time to experience

and immerse themselves in all levels of cultures (national, organisational and safety), and

could describe and discuss them. They could reflect on their first experience of the national

culture and also on their experience of it after they had lived within it for a year or more. In

addition, they could describe the organisational and safety cultures as both outsiders

(reflecting on their experiences) and insiders (as being part of that organisation). The

second phase thus targeted participants who

 were female nurses;

 were non-Saudi, and non-Arabic speaking;

 had been working in the operating theatres for at least one year.

Ethical considerations
It was mentioned in every application to the ethics committees in the first phase

study that there would be a second phase study. Before the commencement of the second

phase, ethics approval was sought from all concerned ethics committees (n = 4). Two

ethics committees granted extensions to the initial approval after revision of the second

phase application; the other two granted new approvals (Appendix 3).

Researchers should acknowledge the ethical responsibilities they have towards

participants in the creation of knowledge (Lincoln, 2009). Studies are usually conducted

according to ethical codes and approvals from institutional review boards or human

research ethics committees. Guillemin and Gillam (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004, p. 263)

propose a classification of ethics as “procedural ethics” and “ethics on practice”. The

former indicates the codes of ethics that are presented by organisations and ethics

committees. The latter is more concerned with the practice of researchers and the handling

Methods 73
of any dilemmas that they face in the field. Despite minor variations between the ethics

codes, most overlap on two main principles: informed consent, and confidentiality and

privacy. The researcher was aware of both types of ethics and strove to conduct the

research in an ethical manner at both levels. Close supervision also helped in achieving this

ethical conduct.

Informed consent
Almost all texts on method discuss informed consent as a principal ethical

obligation (Christians, 2011; Piper & Simons, 2005). Polit and Beck (2004, p. 151)

indicate that “informed consent means that participants have adequate information

regarding the research; are capable of comprehending the information; and have the power

of free choice, enabling them to consent voluntarily to participate in the research or decline

participation”. The study’s consent form included most of the ethical issues that needed to

be explained and maintained:

 The principle of minimising risk for the participants by making them aware that

their participation or refusal to participate would not jeopardise their

relationship with their colleagues, managers or employer.

 The principle of volunteering, by which the participants were informed that

participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time without any

consequences.

 The contact details of the researcher and his supervisors, provided for any

discussions or expressions of concern.

Confidentiality and privacy

Confidentiality, privacy and anonymity were a priority for the researcher during all

phases of data collection, analysis and presentation. Several steps were taken to ensure best

practice:

Methods 74
  All identifying information of participants and non-participants was removed

from the transcripts.

 Other identifying information such as consent forms was stored separately in a

locked cabinet in the researcher’s office at the University of Adelaide.

 The researcher received close guidance and supervision from his research

supervisors at all research stages, through regular meetings and discussions.

 Special care and consideration were taken in presentations of the findings.

4.2.3. Recruitment
After gaining the proper ethics approval, the heads of departments in each of the

targeted hospitals were contacted to facilitate the recruitment process. The process was

much easier in this phase as it followed contact with potential participants in the first phase

data collection. As in the first phase, the researcher targeted the departments’ regular

meetings to provide an overview of the study and encourage the nurses to participate. The

researcher concisely explained the nature of the study and the interviews, never exceeding

five minutes in length. Importantly, the researcher indicated what was required from

potential participants. At the end of the presentation, cards with the researcher’s name and

contacts (phone number and email address), and the research topic, were handed to

interested parties who might like to contact the researcher at a later time. After the

presentation, the researcher stayed for the remainder of the day in the operating department

and made himself available for inquiries and discussion. He met potential participants and

elaborated about the study and the process of participation. These participants might have

contributed to the surveys collected a year before, but this was not known to the researcher.

A schedule of interviews was developed and communicated to the nursing management in

the operating theatre.

Methods 75
 The nursing management in the operating theatre provided a convenient and private

office in which interviews could take place. The schedule of the interviews was agreed

between the participant, the researcher and the nursing management in the operating

department. It included providing the office for the whole interview based on the schedule

of interviews, and relieving the participant from duties for the duration of the interview.

4.2.4. Data analysis

Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data. This has been described

as the most common approach in qualitative analysis, allowing the participants,

collectively, to identify the significant issues on a certain topic (Green & Thorogood,

2004). The conduct of the thematic analysis starts concurrently with the data collection.

Several books have discussed this process, in particular Creswell (2014, pp. 196–201) and

Marshall and Rossman (2011, pp. 209–221), whose ideas shaped the analysis undertaken

by the researcher.

First the data were transcribed and checked against the recordings in order to

prepare them for analysis. Then the researcher spent time reading and immersing himself

in the data, keeping a journal to record formative ideas and analyses. After that, the

researcher started the coding process on hard copies of the transcribed interviews. It was at

this level of analysis that he started to classify chunks of the texts into shorter and

meaningful codes. The researcher kept writing memos as he continued the coding process.

At the end of the coding, the researcher entered the data into NVivo software and recoded

the text electronically, based on the hard copy coding system. This last step helped the

researcher to confirm the coding process and immerse himself in the newly developed

codes. New assumptions were developed and recorded in the research journal. Themes and

categories developed more and more with each iteration. Next, the researcher worked with

the extracted codes, the results of the first study and the theoretical framework, to

Methods 76
conceptualise, describe and connect themes as they emerged. This helped to form themes

that were strongly connected and reflected the basic assumptions of the organisational and

safety cultures. The process did not end when the themes were formed: the researcher went

back to the codes, categories and themes and investigated their connectivity. Then themes

were merged or split, based on their strengths and their place in the whole thematic

structure. Finally, the researcher interpreted the themes and linked them to each other and

to the whole study: that is, the first phase’s results and the theoretical framework.

Each step involved data reduction. The research journal was used to add new

entries and was continually referred to by the researcher. The research supervisors were

consulted at each step of the analysis and provided invaluable guidance and discussion. A

sample cross-coding of an interview transcript was performed at the beginning of the

coding process: each supervisor and the researcher coded the text and then a comparison

was made to check the credibility and dependability of the researcher. Supervisors also

checked the codes’ connectivity to the themes after these had been formed; and the themes’

interconnectivity was also checked.

Trustworthiness
In their iconic book Naturalistic Inquiry, Lincoln and Guba (1985) discuss the

concept of trustworthiness in qualitative research. They list four elements of

trustworthiness that should be applied in all qualitative research inquiries. Despite criticism

and attempts to develop other elements (Cho & Trent, 2006), those four are still the main

principles of trustworthiness in qualitative research. The following discussion outlines

those elements and their applicability to the current research based on the original work of

Lincoln and Guba (1985, pp. 301–331)

Methods 77
 Credibility
Credibility is a qualitative term that is concerned with the truthfulness and the level

of confidence in our findings and interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The credibility

of findings is established when human experiences are described as lived and perceived by

the participants to the point where such descriptions are recognised immediately by others

who share similar experiences (Sandelowski, 1986). Krefting (1991) argues that credibility

is the most important principle of qualitative research assessment. This importance is based

on the assumption of the existence of multiple realities that need to be presented accurately

as revealed by the participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The researcher’s awareness of the importance and difficulty of presenting credible

findings helped in careful planning and conduct in the current study. Interviews with the

participants allowed them to express their views freely. Recordings and transcripts helped

the researcher to immerse himself in and become familiar with those perceptions and

views; keeping a research journal also helped in organising and understanding them.

Transferability
Transferability refers to the applicability of the research findings to other contexts

or groups (Guba, 1981). Transferability can be addressed by the provision of sufficient

description for others to compare contexts and decide on relevance (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). In this thesis the researcher has tried to provide as many details about the study and

the settings as possible so readers can have a clear picture of the research settings. With the

details presented the reader should be able to apply the research findings to similar sittings,

thus making the research more transferable.

Dependability
Dependability refers to the stability of findings over time (Sinkovics & Ghauri,

2008). One way in which dependability can be ensured is to perform “auditing” by a

Methods 78
different investigator (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 317). The research supervisors acted as

auditors throughout the research. They provided critical comments that improved the

dependability of the research.

Conformability
Conformability refers to the fact that the findings were engrained in and reflective

of participants’ perceptions and experiences (Sinkovics & Ghauri, 2008). As with

dependability, the supervisors audited the work and maintained conformability during all

phases of the research. Keeping a reflexive journal during data collection and analysis also

helped in documenting all the steps of the research, which made it easier to go back and

reflect on decisions taken during the research process.

4.3. Summary
In summary, this chapter has presented both the quantitative and qualitative

methods that were used to collect, analyse, interpret and present the data from both phases

of the study. It presented the sample, the sites and the data collection process for each

phase. Ethical considerations were presented for both phases.

Methods 79
Chapter 5: Survey Results
This chapter presents the results from the survey, the first phase of the study. It

starts by outlining the response rate and the demographic information of the respondents.

Next, it presents the descriptive and inferential results of the safety climate and the rating

of the quality of communication between professional groups. Finally it presents the results

of the open-ended questions.

5.1. Response rate

The survey was distributed to 1,068 operating theatre personnel in six different

operating theatre departments. A total of 659 respondents (61.7%) completed

questionnaires that were returned by the end of the data collection period (Table 5.1). The

response rate from each site ranged from 52.1% to 70.9% and the response rate from each

profession ranged from 46.3% from anaesthetists to 71.8% from nurses.

Table 5.1: Response rate by site and profession

Category Number of questionnaires
Distributed Returned %
Site A 82 52 63.4
Site B 71 37 52.1
Site C 138 89 64.5
Site

Site D 333 176 52.9

Site E 128 81 63.3
Site F 316 224 70.9
Surgeon 387 212 54.8
Profession

Anaesthetists 108 50 46.3

Nurses 457 328 71.8
Anaesthesia Technicians 116 69 59.5

Returned questionnaires were screened for eligibility for analysis. This screening

resulted in the exclusion of 10 questionnaires from the returned 659 questionnaires due to

incompleteness. Ultimately, 649 (60.8% response rate) of the responses were valid. A

Survey Results 80
response rate of more than 60% is considered good (Babbie, 2010) and is recommended

for safety climate research (Sexton et al., 2006a).

5.2. Participants’ demographic information

Key demographic information was obtained from the respondents through the

questionnaire. A summary of gender, age, nationality, language spoken at home, tenure

and experience is reported in Table 5.2. More than half of the respondents were female (n

= 345, 53.2%), and that all the professions were male-dominated except for nursing. The

majority of respondents were younger than 39 (n = 408, 62.9%); the majority of surgeons

and anaesthetists were aged between 30 and 49 (n = 158, 61.7%). Due to the low number

of respondents in the oldest group, over 60 (n = 13.2%), this group was merged with the

closest group, 50–59 years (n = 82, 12.6%), into a new group called over 50 years old

(50+). The new category included 95 respondents (14.6%). As a result, the age groups

were reduced from five groups to four in all further analysis.

Respondents were of 28 different nationalities; Table 5.2 presents the most

frequently indicated nationalities. When the results were classified by profession, some

nationality clusters were evident: for example, nurses were predominantly either from the

Philippines or India. The other three professional groups were mainly from Arabic nations.

To quantify the nationalities and for ease of analysis, the nationalities were

categorised into three groups, based on their common cultural background:

1. Saudis: local professionals from Saudi Arabia, who are most familiar with

patients’ customs and dialogue (n = 191, 29.4%).

2. Arabs: professionals from countries speaking Arabic, the national language of

Saudi Arabia, but who might not be familiar with some patients’ customs and

dialogue (n = 161, 24.8%).

Survey Results 81
 3. Others: professionals not from Saudi Arabia or from Arabic-speaking countries,

who are less familiar with the culture and the language than their Arabic and

Saudi colleagues (n = 264, 40.7%).

Saudis have a common understanding of local patients’ languages and customs.

Although Arabs can speak the same language, they are not necessarily familiar with some

of the cultural customs and assumptions. The other professionals add another dimension

because of their lack of familiarity with the Arabic language.

In addition to nationality, the respondents indicated the language they used in their

homes. Several languages were indicated, which were grouped into three main categories:

Arabic, English, and neither Arabic nor English. The first included those professionals who

spoke the language of the host country in their homes. The second included those

professionals who spoke the official language spoken in hospitals in their homes; it also

included respondents who indicated that they spoke English and another language at home.

The third category included all the professionals who indicated speaking their native

language—neither Arabic nor English—at home. Table 5.2 indicates that the majority of

respondents spoke Arabic in their homes (n = 359, 55.3%).

Despite many respondents indicating that they had more than 10 years of

experience (n = 287, 44.2%), the majority indicated that they had spent less than six years

(n = 467, 72%) at their current hospitals at the time when the data were collected (Table

5.2). Almost three-quarters of the respondents (n = 467, 72%) had worked at their hospitals

for six years or fewer. Actually, almost half of the respondents had worked in the hospital

in which data were collected for three years or fewer (n = 315, 49.1%). Generally

respondents tended to have more years of experience in their profession than tenure in their

hospital. Figure 6 compares respondents’ tenure and experience.

Survey Results 82
 Table 5.2: Summary of key demographic information classified by respondents’
professions
Variable Surgeons Anaesthetists Nurses Anaesthesia Overall
technicians
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Gender (missing n = 4; 0.6%)
Female 54 (26.1) 11 (22.4) 265 (83.9) 11 (16.2) 345 (53.2)
Male 153 (73.9) 38 (77.6) 51 (16.1) 57 (83.8) 300 (46.2)
Age (missing n = 6, 0.9%)
< 30 34 (16.4) 6 (12.2) 115 (36.4) 27 (39.7) 182 (28.0)
30–39 67 (32.4) 13 (26.5) 116 (36.7) 27 (39.7) 226 (34.8)
40–49 63 (30.4) 15 (30.6) 49 (15.5) 12 (17.6) 140 (21.6)
50–59 38 (18.4) 9 (18.4) 33 (10.4) 2 (02.9) 82 (12.6)
60 + 4 (1.9) 6 (12.2) 3 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 13 (2.0)
Nationality (missing n = 34, 5.2%)
Saudi 69 (33.2) 9 (18.4) 63 (19.9) 50 (73.5) 191 (29.4)
Philippines 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 112 (35.4) 0 (0.0) 113 (17.4)
India 6 (2.9) 5 (10.2) 85 (26.9) 2 (2.9) 98 (15.1)
Egypt 46 (22.2) 12 (24.5) 7 (2.2) 3 (4.4) 68 (10.5)
Syria 20 (9.7) 7 (14.3) 5 (1.6) 2 (2.9) 34 (5.2)
Sudan 18 (8.7) 1 (2.0) 4 (1.3) 2 (2.9) 25 (3.9)
Other* 43 (10.2) 10 (20.4) 21 (6.6) 8 (11.6) 86 (13.3)
Language spoken at home (missing n = 23, 3.5%)
Arabic 173 (83.6) 36 (73.5) 84 (26.6) 66 (97.1) 359 (55.3)
English 10 (4.8) 6 (12.2) 70 (22.2) 1 (1.5) 87 (13.4)
Other$ 21 (10.1) 7 (14.3) 151 (47.8) 1 (1.5) 180 (27.7)
Tenure (missing n = 8, 1.2%)
< 1 yr. 53 (22.4) 11 (22.4) 49 (15.5) 9 (13.2) 122 (18.8)
1–3 yrs. 50 (24.2) 18 (36.7) 109 (34.5) 15 (22.1) 193 (29.7)
4–6 yrs. 42 (20.3) 8 (16.3) 82 (25.9) 19 (27.9) 152 (23.4)
7–9 yrs. 23 (11.1) 4 (8.3) 48 (15.2) 18 (26.5) 96 (14.8)
10 + yrs. 37 (17.9) 7 (14.3) 27 (8.5) 7 (10.3) 78 (12.0)
Experience (missing n = 7, 1.1%)
< 1 yr. 15 (7.2) 1 (2.0) 17 (5.4) 6 (8.8) 39 (6.0)
1–3 yrs. 28 (13.5) 7 (14.3) 36 (11.4) 10 (14.7) 81 (12.5)
4–6 yrs. 23 (11.1) 6 (12.2) 82 (25.9) 12 (17.6) 123 (19.0)
7–9 yrs. 35 (16.9) 5 (10.2) 51 (16.1) 21 (30.9) 112 (17.3)
10 + yrs. 105 (50.7) 105 (59.2) 129 (40.8) 19 (27.9) 287 (44.2)
* Number of participants from other nationalities (n = 22 other nationalities not reported here)
$
Indicates native languages other than Arabic or English.

Survey Results 83
 350

300 287

250
193
200
152 Tenure
150 122 123 112 Experience
96 78
100 81
39
50

0
<1 year 1 to 3 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 10 + years

Figure 6: Comparison of the number of respondents in each tenure and experience group

Each questionnaire was written in both Arabic and English and the respondents

were asked to indicate which language they used to answer the questions. More than half

indicated that they answered in English (n = 355, 54.7%). Another 267 respondents

answered in Arabic (41.1%). Twenty-seven respondents did not indicate which language

they used (4.2%).

5.2.1. Patient safety overall grade

Participants were asked to rate the overall patient safety grade at their hospital.

Almost half indicated that the overall grade was good (n = 310, 47.8%), and 218

respondents indicated that it was excellent (33.6%), on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

failing to excellent. Overall patient safety in their department was considered acceptable by

93 respondents (14.3%). Twelve respondents (1.8%) indicated it was poor and only one

chose failing (0.2%). Table 5.3 shows how each professional group rated the overall

patient safety at their hospitals. The overall mean was 4.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.75).

The lowest means were found in surgeons ( = 4.04, SD = 0.70) and nurses ( = 4.13, SD

= 0.79).

Survey Results 84
Table 5.3: Number (and percentage) of respondents’ ratings of overall patient safety based on
profession
Response Surgeons Anaesthetists Nurses Technicians Total
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Failing 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2)
Poor 5 (2.4) 1 (0.3) 6 (1.9) 0 (0.0) 12 (1.8)
Acceptable 31 (15.0) 5 (10.2) 54 (17.1) 2 (2.9) 93 (14.7)
Good 119 (57.5) 21 (42.9) 136 (43.0) 31 (45.6) 310 (47.8)
Excellent 49 (23.7) 21 (42.9) 108 (34.2) 35 (51.5) 218 (33.6)
Mean 4.04 (0.70) 4.29 (0.74) 4.13 (0.79) 4.49 (0.56) 4.15 (0.75)
(SD)*
Note: * Responses were given values (failing = 1, poor = 2, acceptable = 3, good = 4 and excellent
= 5) to calculate the mean and standard deviation.

5.2.2. Summary of demographic information

A response of more than 60% was achieved in the first phase of the study. Even

though there were slightly more female respondents than male respondents, all the

professions, except nursing, were male-dominated. More than half of respondents had

Arabic origins and spoke Arabic; more than three-quarters of nurses were from non-Arabic

origins.

While most respondents were younger than 39, the majority of surgeons and

anaesthetists were between the ages of 30 and 49. Most respondents had more than 10

years’ experience in their professions, but about half had been working at their hospitals

for fewer than three years at the time of data collection. Most respondents believed that the

overall patient safety at their hospitals was either good or excellent.

5.3. Patient safety scale

This section reports the analysis and results of the safety climate section of the

survey. The original scale included six dimensions (30 items) that had been

psychometrically tested and validated (Sexton et al., 2006a), and eight new items. The

Survey Results 85
reliability test was presented and followed by a confirmatory factor analysis for the

previously tested subscales. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the new items.

Means, correlations and regressions were also presented.

5.4. Psychometric analysis

5.4.1. Internal consistency
Internal consistency is commonly measured and reported using Cronbach’s

coefficient alpha which takes a value between 0 and 1; higher values indicate higher

reliability. Nunnally (1978, p. 245) argues that acceptable values of Cronbach’s alpha vary

depending on the scale’s purpose, but should not be less than 0.7. George and Mallery

(2003, p. 231) indicate that the level of internal consistency could be described as excellent

if values are above 0.9, good if between 0.8 and 0.9, acceptable if above 0.7, questionable

if above 0.6, poor if above 0.5, and unacceptable below 0.5.

Cronbach’s alpha for the original scale (30 items) in the current study was 0.88,

which indicated that the scale had very good internal consistency. The original scale

consisted of six dimensions or subscales that were tested individually. All dimensions were

found to have acceptable (above 0.70) to good (above 0.80) values except for the

‘perception of management’ dimension ( = 0.44) (Table 5.4).

Cronbach’s alpha tends to be lower in scales with fewer than 10 items (Nunnally,

1978). In this case, inter-item correlation was investigated and found to be 0.17, which was

below the recommended cut-off level of 0.2 (Briggs & Cheek, 1986, p. 115). Cronbach’s

alpha correlation value increased to 0.57 when item #7, “hospital management does not

knowingly compromise the safety of patients”, was deleted. The inter-item correlation

mean also increased to 0.32. The structure of the dimension in terms of its constituent

items via confirmatory factor analysis is discussed in the following section.

Survey Results 86
Table 5.4: Alpha correlation for each dimension
Dimension Number of items Alpha coefficient Mean inter-item
correlation
Teamwork climate 6 .76 .364
Safety climate 7 .71 .275
Job satisfaction 5 .75 .366
Stress recognition 4 .82 .539
Perception of 4 .44 .174
management 3* .57 .324
Working conditions 4 .73 .407
Multicultural workplace^ 3 .79 .562
Notes: * when item #7 was deleted.
^ the new dimension (see sub-section 5.4.3)

5.4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis

The original scale was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis to test the

underlying factorial structure of the overall scale using IBM SPSS Amos analysis program

software version 21 (IBM, 2012). Because the data had a low number of missing values on

each item (details are presented in the following section), they were subjected to factor

analysis without the substitution of missing values. All items showed good regression on

weight estimates except for item #7 and, to a lesser extent, item #13 (Table 5.5). These

findings are in line with the results of the principal component analysis when Cronbach’s

alpha for the perception of management dimension improved from 0.44 to 0.57 by deleting

item #7.

Table 5.6 shows the inter-correlation between the dimensions using Pearson’s

correlation coefficient. Other than the stress recognition dimension, all other dimensions

were highly and positively correlated with each other. The stress recognition dimension

was negatively correlated with all other dimensions. All the correlations were significant at

p < 0.001 (two-tailed).

Survey Results 87
Table 5.5: Regression weight estimates
Dimension Item # Estimate Standardised Standard Composite
estimate error reliability
Safety 22 1.000 .566
climate 15 .780 .507 .072 10.762
14 .589 .385 .069 8.591
13 .368 .188 .082 4.459
12 .962 .618 .077 12.449
11 1.094 .678 .083 13.243
10 1.286 .703 .095 13.534
Teamwork 16 1.000 .633
climate 17 1.240 .694 .087 14.197
21 .870 .403 .097 8.984
34 1.174 .620 .090 13.018
35 .979 .624 .075 13.115
36 1.027 .642 .077 13.414
Job 1 1.000 .337
satisfaction 2 2.946 .741 .364 8.084
5 2.846 .654 .362 7.856
9 3.219 .768 .395 8.140
37 2.311 .570 .305 7.564
Stress 31 1.000 .620
recognition 29 1.183 .811 .077 15.296
28 1.297 .840 .084 15.492
27 1.020 .671 .075 13.578
Working 25 1.000 .561
conditions 8 1.269 .600 .106 11.996
4 1.462 .706 .109 13.362
3 1.543 .731 .113 13.642
Perception of 6 1.000 .738
management 7 -.056 -.036 .063 -.886
23 .756 .581 .052 14.567
26 .594 .401 .060 9.927
Note: the p-value was < 0.001 for all items except #7 (p = 0.375)

Table 5.6: Correlations among dimensions

Teamwork Safety Job Stress Working
climate climate satisfaction recognition conditions
Safety climate .711*
Job satisfaction .639* .653*
Stress recognition -.183* -.205* -.174*
Working conditions .599* .696* .691* -.202*
Perception of .482* .516* .535* -.119* .616*
management
Note: Pearson correlation is used for calculations; * correlations were significant at p < 0.01 (two-
tailed).

Survey Results 88
 Goodness-of-fit indices indicate an acceptable model fit. These indices include the

chi-square test of absolute model fit (2), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index

(CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The standardised root mean

square residual (SRMR) was not calculated as a result of using data with missing values.

The x2 test value was 1413.85 (df = 390, p < 0.001). Although it is recommended

that the significance level for the chi-square test exceed 0.05 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993),

this is difficult to achieve with a large sample size (Jöreskog, 1969). The TLI and CFI take

values between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1 indicating a good fit (Bentler, 1990;

Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The TLI and CFI yield values of 0.85 and 0.87, respectively. It is

suggested that the TLI and CFI values should be above 0.90 for a good model fit (Browne

& Cudeck, 1993), which indicates that the fit of the current model is slightly below

optimal. RMSEA values can range from 0 (best fit) to more than 1 (poor fit) (Vandenberg

& Lance, 2000). Browne and Cudeck (1993) argue that RMSEA values below 0.08 are

indicative of good fit. The RMSEA value for the current model is 0.06 (0.060–0.067, p <

0.001), which results in a good model fit. The overall results of the goodness-of-fit indices

indicate that the data has an acceptable fit for the model.

The original scale was found to have good psychometric properties when subjected

to psychometric analysis. All the dimensions showed good internal consistency and good

factorial properties, except for the perception of management, which had low internal

consistency, and some issues were raised by the confirmatory factor analysis results. The

statement “hospital management does not knowingly compromise the safety of patients”

(item #7) showed the most negative effect on the perception of management dimension.

Other than this issue, the dimension was found to have good psychometric properties.

Survey Results 89
 5.4.3. The new dimension: multicultural workplace
Eight new items were added to the scale to explore the experiences of Saudi and

non-Saudi professionals working together in a predominantly Saudi culture. Five of these

items, which measured the same concept of attitude about working in a multicultural

environment, were tested for dimensionality (Table 5.7). Two tests, the Kaiser–Meyer–

Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, were

conducted to determine the factorability of the data. For data to be considered for factor

analysis, the KMO should exceed 0.50 (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity

should be significant at p < 0.05 (Stevens, 2009). The five items were found to be suitable

for factor analysis when the KMO was 0.59, which Kaiser (1974, p. 35) describes as

“mediocre”. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The

correlation matrix was also investigated and found to have many coefficients with

satisfying strengths. Thus, the five items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis.

Table 5.7: The new items tested for dimensionality

Item Description Mean (SD) Tested for
dimensionality
#
18 Working with personnel from different cultures does not 3.16 (1.23) Yes
reduce the quality of communication.
19 I do not find it difficult to work with employees of the 3.87 (1.07) Yes
opposite gender.
20 I do not find it difficult to work with employees from 3.76 (1.13) Yes
another culture.
32 I find it as easy to treat patients of the opposite gender as 3.37 (1.25) Yes
patients from my gender.
33 I find it as easy to treat patients from another culture as 3.39 (1.24) Yes
patients from my culture.
24 New policies are well communicated to the staff. 3.67 (1.02) No
30 I have to work consecutive night shifts. 3.24 (1.18) No
38 Patients here disclose important medical information to the 2.79 (1.01) No
treating professionals.

Survey Results 90
 The five new items were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA), which

revealed the presence of two components with eigenvalues above 1. These two

components explain a total of 78% of the variance (43% and 35%, respectively). They are

also evident in the scree plot (Figure 7). The component matrix shows that three items

loaded strongly on the first component while the other two loaded strongly on the other.

Both the unrotated and oblimin rotated loadings are similar (Table 5.8). Because the

second component had only two elements, it was not considered a dimension or factor

(Pallant, 2010). It was concluded that three elements contributed to the new multicultural

workplace dimension and should be subjected to further psychometric tests (items # 18, 19

& 20).

Figure 7: Scree plot showing two dimensions

Table 5.8: Pattern and structure matrix for PCA with oblimin rotation for two factors in the
new dimension
Item # Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities
Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2
20 .904 -.018 .905 -.046 .819
19 .841 -.123 .845 -.148 .729
18 .778 .126 .775 .102 .616
33 .017 .936 -.011 .935 .875
32 -.019 .930 -.047 .931 .867
Note: Bold font indicates the highest loading between the two components on each item

Survey Results 91
 Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the internal consistency reliability of the new

dimension (three items), and was found to give a strong alpha coefficient of 0.79 despite

the low number of items. The mean inter-item correlation was 0.56. In addition, the

dimension had strong item-total correlations (range = 0.54 to 0.74). The multicultural

workplace dimension was also found to have significant correlation with teamwork

climate, safety climate, job satisfaction and stress recognition.

Table 5.9: Correlation between multicultural workplace dimension and other dimensions
Teamwork Safety Job Stress Working Perception of
climate climate satisfaction recognition conditions management
Multicultural .218* .132* .135* -.242* .038 -.041
workplace
Note: Pearson correlation is used for calculations;
* correlations were significant at p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

The new dimension, multicultural workplace, was of interest in investigating

perceptions of and attitudes towards the multicultural work environment. Positive

responses are indicative of a positive environment benefiting from the multicultural

workforce. On the other hand, negative scores on the dimension are indicative of an

environment that is negatively affected by the multicultural workforce. In the latter

environment, patient safety could be affected negatively by the presence of the

multicultural workforce. Table 5.10 provides a summary of the new dimension’s items and

other items that were not part of any dimension.

Survey Results 92
Table 5.10: New dimension’s items and other new items
Item Item description % Mean % %
# missing (SD) agreement disagreement
(Range)^ (Range)$
Multicultural workplace (3 items) = 3.6, SD = 0.96
18 Working with personnel from 0.5 3.16 49 36
different cultures does not reduce (1.23) (40–59) (30–39)
the quality of communication. *
19 I do not find it difficult to work with 0.3 3.87 75 13
employees of the opposite gender. * (1.07) (60–79) (8–23)
20 I do not find it difficult to work with 0.5 3.76 72 16
employees from another culture. * (1.13) (63–77) (6–23)
Other items that were not part of any dimension (5 items)
24 New policies are well communicated 0.3 3.67 68 17
to the staff. (1.02) (58–80) (9–26)
30 I have to work consecutive night 1.2 3.24 49 29
shifts. (1.18) (39–54) (26–38)
32 I find it as easy to treat patients of 0.6 3.37 54 29
the opposite gender as patients from (1.25) (29–75) (15–47)
my gender.
33 I find it as easy to treat patients from 0.6 3.39 56 29
another culture as patients from my (1.24) (29–81) (11–50)
culture.
38 Patients here disclose important 1.4 2.79 25 41
medical information to the treating (1.01) (16–28) (30–63)
professionals.*
Note: Likert scale values (strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; neutral = 3; agree = 4 and strongly
agree = 5).
(% missing = percentage of missing values on corresponding item). (% agreement = percentage of
agree and strongly agree responses from the total responses). (% disagreement = percentage
of strongly disagree and disagree responses from the total responses).
* Originally negatively worded questions, presented here after being reworded and recoded where a
higher mean indicates a more positive response.
^ The range of the lowest and the highest percentage agreement by operating department.
$ The range of the lowest and the highest percentage disagreement by operating department.

5.5. Items and dimensions of the safety climate

The mean was calculated and presented with the standard deviation (SD) for each

item and dimension based on participants’ average scores (Table 5.11). The percentages of

positive responses (i.e., agree and strongly agree) and negative responses (i.e., strongly

disagree and disagree) for each item are presented in the same table. In addition, the lowest

and highest percentage of agreement and disagreement by site are presented.

Survey Results 93
 Table 5.11 shows the variation in the presented results. The lowest mean is found

for the statement “hospital management does not knowingly compromise the safety of

patients” (item #7; = 3.06, SD = 1.22). The highest mean is for item #1 (“I like my job”),

with a mean of 4.5 (SD = 0.68). Table 5.11 also shows the percentage of missing responses

for each item; these ranged from 0.2% and 1.4% of the total responses.

The means for the dimensions range between 3.3 and 4.0 (Table 5.11). The highest

mean is for job satisfaction ( = 4.00, SD = 0.64) and the lowest for perception of

management ( = 3.32, SD = 0.7). For each dimension, the percentage of respondents with

means ≥ 4 (out of 5) were calculated for each operating department and are presented in

Figure 8. The greatest variation between sites is found in the stress recognition dimension

(27%–68%), followed by the working conditions dimension (29%–54%). The lowest

variations are in the safety climate (19%–36%) and perception of management dimensions

(14%–31%). Teamwork climate (29%–57%), job satisfaction (48%–71%) and

multicultural workplace (42%–60%) also show variations between the clinical sites.

Survey Results 94
Table 5.11: Original scale items
Item # Item description % missing Mean (SD) % agreement % disagreement
(Range)^ (Range)$
Teamwork climate (6 items) = 3.72, SD = 0.64
16 Nurse input about patient care is well received in this OR 1.2 3.84 (0.84) 74 (58–85) 7 (4–14)
[operating room].
17 The physicians and nurses here work together as a well- 1.2 3.86 (0.95) 75 (65–84) 10 (6–17)
coordinated team.
21 In this OR, it is not difficult to speak up if I perceived a 1.2 3.34 (1.15) 58 (52–64) 27 (18–38)
problem with patient care. *
34 Disagreements in this OR are resolved appropriately (i.e., not 0.9 3.69 (1.01) 67 (58–84) 13 (8–15)
who is right, but what is best for the patient).
35 I have the support I need from other personnel to care for 0.3 3.77 (0.84) 72 (64–81) 9 (3–12)
patients.
36 It is easy for personnel in this OR to ask questions when there 0.2 3.81 (0.85) 73 (65–87) 8 (4–12)
is something that they do not understand.
Safety climate (7 items) = 3.62, SD = 0.6
10 I would feel safe being treated here as a patient. 1.4 3.57 (1.07) 62 (35–75) 15 (9–43)
11 Medical errors are handled appropriately in this OR. 0.5 3.85 (0.94) 74 (57–87) 9 (4–19)
12 I am encouraged by my colleagues to report any patient safety 0.3 3.87 (0.91) 76 (67–84) 9 (6–12)
concerns I may have.
13 In this OR, it is not difficult to discuss errors. * 0.8 3.13 (1.14) 43 (32–55) 31 (24–37)
14 The culture in this OR makes it easy to learn from the errors of 1.1 3.59 (0.89) 63 (60–70) 13 (3–16)
others.
15 I know the proper channels to direct questions regarding 0.6 3.76 (0.9) 71 (61–82) 10 (6–14)
patient safety in this OR.
22 I receive appropriate feedback about my performance. 0.6 3.53 (1.03) 64 (56–81) 18 (5–25)
Job satisfaction (5 items) = 4, SD = 0.64
1 I like my job. 0.6 4.54 (0.68) 94 (91 –95) 2 (1–4)
2 This hospital is a good place to work. 0.9 4.0 (0.91) 79 (62–87) 7 (3–30)
5 Working in this hospital is like being part of a large family. 0.8 3.77 (1.0) 69 (64–72) 13 (8–18)
9 I am proud to work at this hospital. 1.2 3.98 (0.96) 76 (51–84) 8 (3–32)
37 Morale in this OR is high. 0.5 3.73 (0.93) 69 (64–72) 11 (8–22)
Stress recognition (4 items) = 3.5, SD = 0.95
27 When my workload becomes excessive, my performance is 0.5 3.56 (1.16) 61 (47–87) 23 (12–31)
impaired.
28 Fatigue impairs my performance during emergency situations. 0.2 3.44 (1.18) 59 (44–84) 26 (14–38)
29 I am less effective at work when fatigued. 1.2 3.57 (1.11) 64 (46–84) 22 (11–32)
31 I am more likely to make errors in tense or hostile situations. 2.0 3.43 (1.23) 57 (38–78) 28 (14–41)
Working conditions (4 items) = 3.6, SD = 0.77
3 This hospital does a good job of training new personnel. 1.1 3.69 (1.07) 65 (46–77) 15 (3–29)
4 Trainees in my discipline are adequately supervised. 0.9 3.63 (1.05) 65 (50–81) 16 (4–30)
8 This hospital constructively deals with problem physicians and 1.4 3.17 (1.07) 41 (32–49) 25 (14–32)
employees.
25 All the necessary information is available before the start of a 0.8 3.89 (0.9) 78 (70–83) 10 (7–13)
procedure.
Perception of management (4 items) = 3.32, SD = 0.7
6 Hospital management supports my daily efforts 0.2 3.39 (1.08) 51 (38–58) 22 (15–41)
7 Hospital management does not knowingly compromise the 1.5 3.06 (1.22) 39 (26–49) 36 (30–41)
safety of patients.
23 I am provided with adequate, timely information about events 0.5 3.41 (1.04) 57 (44–70) 21 (11–33)
in the hospital that might affect my work.
26 The levels of staffing in this OR are sufficient to handle the 0.6 3.43 (1.18) 62 (30–72) 26 (16–62)
number of patients.
Note: Likert scale values (strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; neutral = 3; agree = 4 and strongly agree = 5).
(% missing = percentage of missing values on corresponding item). (% agreement = percentage of agree and strongly agree responses
from the total responses). (% disagreement = percentage of strongly disagree and disagree responses from the total responses).
* Originally negatively worded questions that are presented here after been reworded and recoded where a higher mean indicates a more
positive response.
^ The range of the lowest and the highest percentage agreement by operating department.
$ The range of the lowest and the highest percentage disagreement by operating department.
OR refers to Operating Rooms

Survey Results 95
 Percentage positive score was
calculated as the percentage of
respondents who scored above 4
on a dimension in an operating
theatre department
Site A = 1; Site B = 2; Site C = 3;
Site D = 4; Site E = 5 & Site F = 6

Figure 8: Percentages of positive scores across the six operating theatre departments

Survey Results 96
 Diverse results were also obtained from the remaining five new items (Table 5.10).

The highest mean ( = 3.67, SD = 1.02) is found on statement #24, “new policies are well

communicated to the staff”. Most respondents agreed with that statement (68%, range by

clinical place = 58%–80%). The lowest mean ( = 2.79, SD = 1.01) is found on statement

#38, “patients here disclose important medical information to the treating professionals”.

Forty-one per cent of participants disagreed with this statement compared to only 25% who

were in agreement. This statement has the highest percentage of missing responses (n = 9,

1.4%) among the new items (range = 0.3%–1.4%).

5.6. Inferential statistics for each dimension

Each dimension was subjected to univariable analysis to explore significant

differences between groups. Two tailed t-tests were used for independent variables with

two levels (i.e. gender and language used to answer the questionnaire). One way analysis

of variance (ANOVA) was used for independent variables with more than two variables;

that is site (6 sites), age (4 groups), profession (4 groups), nationality (3 groups) and tenure

(5 groups). Tukey HSD post-hoc test was used to identify the groups of significance

differences. After that, backward stepwise multiple regressions were used to test which

independent variables significantly predicted the investigated dimensions. The same

independent variables (with significance value of < 0.15) were included in the multiple

regressions. The results for each dimension are presented separately.

5.6.1. Teamwork climate

Univariable analysis for teamwork climate shows significant difference between

sites (F (5,643) = 2.90; p = 0.014) and age groups (F (3,639) = 4.36; p = 0.005) (Table

5.12). Higher means for teamwork climate indicates a more positive perception of the

quality of teamwork and collaboration between professionals within that operating

department, and vice versa. Tukey’s HSD [honest significant difference] post-hoc tests

Survey Results 97
indicate that the teamwork mean in site D is statistically lower than the mean from site F,

and that the youngest group of respondents (aged 18–29) have a statistically lower mean

than respondents in the two oldest groups (i.e., older than 40).

The backward stepwise regression shown that site, profession and age of the

respondents are significantly predicting about 6% of the teamwork climate (R2 = 0.058, F

(9,629) = 4028, p < 0.001) (Table 5.13).

Table 5.12: Univariable results for teamwork climate dimension

IV Groups N Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site A 52 3.56 (.65) F (5,643) = 2.9 .014
B 37 3.82 (.68)
C 87 3.75 (.68)
D 169 3.60 (.64)a
E 80 3.78 (.65)
F 224 3.79 (.61)a
Profession Surgeons 207 3.71 (.61) F (3,636) = 1.83 .141
Anaesthetists 49 3.85 (.6)
Nurses 316 3.67 (.65)
Anaesthesia 68 3.82 (.68)
technicians
Gender* Male 300 3.76 (.67) t (643) = 1.48 .138
Female 345 3.68 (.61)
Nationality Saudi 191 3.64 (.71) F (2,613) = 2.75 .065
Arabic 161 3.80 (.55)
Non-Arabic 264 3.73 (.63)
Age 18–29 182 3.61 (.67)a,B F (3,639) = 4.36 .005
30–39 226 3.69 (.67)
40–49 140 3.79 (.61)a
50+ 95 3.87 (.52)B
Tenure <1 122 3.71 (.59) F (4,636) = 2.06 .084
1–3 193 3.68 (.68)
4–6 152 3.69 (.69)
7–9 96 3.84 (.59)
10+ 78 3.81 (.55)
Language Arabic 267 3.71 (.65) t (620) = - 0.29 .771
English 355 3.73 (.64)
used to
answer*

Notes: * indicates using t-test instead of ANOVA.

Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Survey Results 98
Table 5.13: Final regression model for teamwork climate dimension
Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Site D .000 .000
Site A -.031 .100 -.013 -.312 .755
Site B .239 .115 .087 2.083 .038
Site C .176 .083 .094 2.113 .035
Site E .192 .086 .099 2.248 .025
Site F .249 .068 .184 3.692 < .001
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons .040 .061 .029 .662 .508
Anaesthetists .094 .099 .039 .956 .339
Anaesthesia techs .188 .085 .090 2.224 .027
Age .101 .026 .162 3.966 < .001
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; R2 = 0.058, Adjusted R = 0.044, p < 0.001

5.6.2. Safety climate

Safety climate means are statistically different based on almost all independent

variables (Table 5.14). The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that means are

statistically significantly different based on respondent’s site, profession, nationality, age

and tenure. Higher means on safety climate indicates a more positive perception of a strong

and proactive organisational commitment to safety, and vice versa. The post-hoc test

shows that the safety climate mean at site F is significantly higher than at sites A and D. In

addition, the mean at site C is significantly higher than at site D. With regard to

respondents’ professions and safety climate, the post-hoc test shows nurses higher than

surgeons, and the Saudi respondents’ mean greater than that of non-Arabic respondents. It

is also evident in the post-hoc results that younger respondents have significantly lower

scores. Similar results are found when results are classified based on tenure: respondents

with fewer than three years of experience in the same operating department score lower

than those with more than seven years.

Survey Results 99
Table 5.14: Univariable results for safety climate dimension
IV Groups N Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.

Site A 52 3.49 (.62)a F (5,643) = 5.59 < .001

B 37 3.57 (.64)
C 87 3.69 (.59)b
D 169 3.46 (.65)b,C
E 80 3.58 (.55)
F 224 3.75 (.52)a,C
Profession Surgeons 207 3.51 (.61)a F (3,636) = 4.44 .004
Anaesthetists 49 3.75 (.50)
Nurses 316 3.62 (.58)
Anaesthesia 68 3.76 (.61)a
technicians
Gender* Male 300 3.60 (.60) t (643) = - .447 .655
Female 345 3.62 (.59)
Nationality Saudi 191 3.51 (.69)a F (2,535) = 4.42 .013
Arabic 161 3.65 (.50)
Non-Arabic 264 3.67 (.57)a
Age 18–29 182 3.48 (.59)A,B F (3,610) = 7.31 < .001
30–39 226 3.59 (.63)C
40–49 140 3.70 (.59)A
50+ 95 3.79 (.43)B,C
Tenure <1 122 3.53 (.58)a,b F (4,636) = 4.91 .001
1–3 193 3.54 (.60)c,d
4–6 152 3.58 (.59)
7–9 96 3.78 (.62)a,c
10+ 78 3.78 (.52)b,d
Language Arabic 267 3.61 (.59) t (620) = - .43 .664
used to English 355 3.63 (.61)
answer*
Notes: * indicates using t-test instead of ANOVA.
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

The backward stepwise regressions show that the site, profession and age

significantly predict about 11% of the safety climate dimension (R2 = 0.106, F (9,629) =

8.253, p < 0.001) (Table 5.15).

Survey Results 100

Table 5.15: Final regression model for safety climate dimension
Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Site D .000 .000
Site A .013 .090 .006 .148 .883
Site B .095 .103 .038 .924 .356
Site C .263 .075 .152 3.486 .001
Site E .118 .077 .066 1.524 .128
Site F .286 .061 .228 4.694 < .001
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons .030 .089 .013 .337 .736
Anaesthetists -.128 .055 -.101 -2.333 .020
Anaesthesia technicians .195 .076 .101 2.561 .011
Age .135 .023 .232 5.846 < .001

5.6.3. Job satisfaction

Univariable analysis for job satisfaction dimension shows that there are statistically

different means based on respondents’ worksites, nationality, age and tenure (Table 5.16).

Higher means on the job satisfaction dimension indicates a more positive perception of

work experience at that particular operating department, and vice versa. Tukey’s HSD

post-hoc analysis indicates that site F has a statistically significantly higher mean than sites

A or B. In addition, it shows that Saudis respond statistically lower on job satisfaction than

the other two groups.

Respondents younger than 29 respond statistically differently than respondents

older than 40. Only the means of respondents with one to three years of tenure are

statistically different from the means of respondents with more than seven years of tenure.

Table 5.17 presents backward stepwise regressions showing that site and age

significantly predict about 7% of the dimension (R2 = 0.065, F (6,636) = 7.39, p < 0.001)

Survey Results 101

Table 5.16: Univariable results for job satisfaction dimension
IV Groups N Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site A 52 3.76 (.65)A F (5,643) = 4.40 .001
B 37 3.74 (.84)B
C 87 4.00 (.69)
D 169 4.00 (.58)
E 80 3.97 (.63)
F 224 4.12 (.59)A,B
Profession Surgeons 207 3.99 (.60) F (3,636) = .32 .813
Anaesthetists 49 4.06 (.61)
Nurses 316 3.99 (.65)
Anaesthesia 68 4.04 (.74)
technicians
Gender* Male 300 3.99 (.65) t (643) = - .361 .718
Female 345 4.01 (.63)
Nationality Saudi 191 3.88 (.73)A,b F (2,535) = 5.76 .003
Arabic 161 4.10 (.58)A
Non-Arabic 264 4.05 (.59)b
Age 18–29 182 3.88 (.71)A,B F (3,605) = 6.08 <.001
30–39 226 3.98 (.64)
40–49 140 4.12 (.59)A
50+ 95 4.14 (.48)B
Tenure <1 122 3.95 (.65) F (4,597) = 4.39 .002
1–3 193 3.91 (.65)a,b
4–6 152 3.40 (.69)
7–9 96 4.17 (.60)a
10+ 78 4.17 (.49)b
Language used Arabic 267 3.98 (.66) t (620) = - .755 .451
to answer* English 355 4.02 (.61)

Notes: * indicates using t-test instead of ANOVA.

Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Table 5.17: Final regression model for job satisfaction dimension

Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Site D .000 .000
Site A -.246 .098 -.105 -2.500 .013
Site B -.247 .112 -.090 -2.197 .028
Site C .007 .082 .004 .080 .936
Site E -.030 .084 -.015 -.354 .723
Site F .157 .064 .118 2.468 .014
Age .111 .024 .177 4.580 < .001
Note: R2 = 0.065; Adjusted R2 = 0.056; p < 0.001

Survey Results 102

 5.6.4. Stress recognition
Stress recognition means were statistically different based on the respondent’s site,

profession, gender and nationality (Table 5.18). In addition, respondents who indicated that

they had answered the English version of the questionnaire had statistically significantly

lower means on the stress recognition dimension than those who indicated that they had

answered the Arabic version.

Higher means on the stress recognition dimension indicate more acknowledgement

of the effect of stress on people’s performance and concentration. Post-hoc tests indicate

that the means of respondents from site F were statistically lower than those from all other

sites. Nurses responded statistically lower than all other professional groups. The means of

non-Arabic respondents were statistically lower than the means of respondents of Arabic

nationalities.

Multiple regression analysis shows that site, nationality and gender of respondents

are the significant predictors of the stress recognition dimension (Table 5.19). Backward

stepwise regressions show that the three independent variables can significantly predict

20% of the stress recognition’s score (R2 = 0.201, F (8,607) = 19.05, p < 0.001).

Survey Results 103

Table 5.18: Univariable results for stress recognition dimension
IV Groups N Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site A 52 3.61 (.99)a F (5,405) = 12.25 < .001
B 37 4.02 (.73)B
C 87 3.69 (.97)C
D 169 3.70 (.81)D
E 80 3.51 (.77)f
F 224 3.16 (1.01)a,B,C,D,f
Profession Surgeons 207 3.84 (.79)A F (3,269) = 24.00 < .001
Anaesthetists 49 3.79 (.86)B
Nurses 316 3.21 (.95)A,B,C
Anaesthesia 68 3.69 (.95)C
technicians
Gender* Male 300 3.84 (.83) t (643) = 9.18 < .001
Female 345 3.21 (.94)
Nationality Saudi 191 3.80 (.87)A F (2,613) = 62.97 < .001
Arabic 161 3.88 (.78)B
Non-Arabic 264 3.06 (.89)A,B
Age 18–29 182 3.40 (1.06) F (3,572) = 2.42 .065
30–39 226 3.47 (.91)
40–49 140 3.66 (.88)
50+ 95 3.51 (.84)
Tenure <1 122 3.63 (.94) F (4,636) = .96 .429
1–3 193 3.43 (.99)
4–6 152 3.50 (.96)
7–9 96 3.45 (.90)
10+ 78 3.53 (.82)
Language Arabic 267 3.85 (.84) t (620) = 8.26 < .001
used to English 355 3.26 (.93)
answer*
Notes: * indicates using t-test instead of ANOVA.
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p < 0.01).

Table 5.19: Final regression model for stress recognition dimension

Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Site D .000 .000
Site A -.140 .137 -.041 -1.020 .308
Site B .175 .160 .042 1.089 .277
Site C .011 .115 .004 .098 .922
Site E -.019 .119 -.007 -.157 .875
Site F -.226 .096 -.114 -2.344 .019
Saudi nationals .000 .000
Arabic nationals .085 .091 .040 .936 .350
Non-Arabic nationals -.471 .101 -.249 -4.672 < .001
Male respondents .294 .087 .156 3.377 .001
Note: R2 = 0.201, Adjusted R2 = 0.190, p < 0.001

Survey Results 104

 5.6.5. Working conditions
The means of the working conditions dimension are statistically different based on

the respondent’s site, profession and nationality (Table 5.20). Higher means indicates a

more positive perception of the quality of the work environment. Tukey’s HSD post-hoc

test indicates that respondents from site F have means statistically higher than those from

other sites, except site C. Similarly, respondents from non-Arabic nationalities have higher

means than Saudis. Anaesthesia technicians had statistically higher means than surgeons.

Table 5.20: Univariable results for working conditions dimension

IV Groups N Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site A 52 3.38 (.75)A F (5,295) = 8.40 < .001
B 37 3.35 (.94)B
C 87 3.64 (.74)
D 169 3.44 (.86)C
E 80 3.44 (.73)D
F 224 3.86 (.59)A,B,C,D
Profession Surgeons 207 3.47 (.74)A F (3,636) = 4.22 .006
Anaesthetists 49 3.65 (.75)
Nurses 316 3.61 (.75)
Anaesthesia 68 3.84 (.85)A
technicians
Gender* Male 300 3.58 (.79) t (643) = - .461 .645
Female 345 3.61 (.74)
Nationality Saudi 191 3.48 (.89)a F (2,522) = 3.90 .021
Arabic 161 3.61 (.72)
Non-Arabic 264 3.69 (.69)a
Age 18–29 182 3.52 (.80) F (3,594) = 2.22 .085
30–39 226 3.56 (.78)
40–49 140 3.66 (.78)
50+ 95 3.73 (.62)
Tenure <1 122 3.62 (.81) F (4,636) = 1.12 .346
1–3 193 3.53 (.77)
4–6 152 3.57 (.78)
7–9 96 3.69 (.74)
10+ 78 3.68 (.69)
Language Arabic 267 3.58 (.83) t (531) = -.57 .571
used to English 355 3.61 (.73)
answer*
Notes: * indicates using t-test instead of ANOVA.
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Survey Results 105

 Multiple regression analysis indicates that respondent’s site, profession and age are

significant predictors of the working conditions dimension (Table 5.21). Backward

stepwise regressions show that these three independent variables can statistically predict

about 11% of the working conditions dimension (R2 = 0.106, F (9,629) = 8.27, p < 0.001).

Table 5.21: Final regression model for working conditions dimension

Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Site D .000 .000
Site A -.052 .116 -.019 -.451 .652
Site B -.090 .133 -.027 -.675 .500
Site C .245 .097 .110 2.521 .012
Site E .017 .099 .007 .169 .866
Site F .437 .079 .270 5.565 < .001
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons -.086 .071 -.053 -1.218 .224
Anaesthetists -.035 .115 -.012 -.307 .759
Anaesthesia technicians .301 .098 .121 3.068 .002
Age .119 .030 .159 4.012 < .001
Note: R2 = 0.106; Adjusted R2 = 0.093; p < 0.001

5.6.6. Perception of management

The means of the perception of management dimension are statistically different

based on the respondent’s sites and nationality (Table 5.22); higher means indicate more

positive views of the appropriateness of management’s actions regarding safety issues.

Respondents from site F have higher means for the perception of management

dimension than respondents from all other sites except site C. Similarly, non-Arabic

respondents have a higher mean for perception of management than respondents from

Arabic nationalities.

Results of multiple regression analysis show that only site and age of respondents

are significant predictors of the perception of management dimension (Table 5.23).

Survey Results 106

Backward stepwise regression shows that site and age can statistically predict about 7% of

this dimension (R2 = 0.073, F (6,636) = 8.64, p < 0.001).

Table 5.22: Univariable results for perception of management dimension

IV Groups N Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.

Site A 52 3.14 (.77)A F (5,643) = 8.08 <.001

B 37 3.04 (.75)B
C 87 3.32 (.76)
D 169 3.26 (.65)C
E 80 3.12 (.69)D
F 224 3.53 (.63)A,B,C,D
Profession Surgeons 207 3.24 (.66) F (3,636) = 1.54 .203
Anaesthetists 49 3.34 (.61)
Nurses 316 3.35 (.71)
Anaesthesia 68 3.42 (.81)
technicians
Gender* Male 300 3.32 (.70) t (643) = - .182 .856
Female 345 3.33 (.70)
Nationality Saudi 191 3.25 (.73)a F (2,613) = 5.06 .007
Arabic 161 3.25 (.65)b
Non-Arabic 264 3.43 (.70)a,b
Age 18–29 182 3.26 (.71) F (3,639) = 2.43 .064
30–39 226 3.27 (.65)
40–49 140 3.43 (.75)
50+ 95 3.40 (.69)
Tenure <1 122 3.35 (.62) F (4,636) = .18 .949
1–3 193 3.32 (.70)
4–6 152 3.30 (.77)
7–9 96 3.35 (.66)
10+ 78 3.30 (.72)
Language Arabic 267 3.25 (.72) t (620) = - 1.92 .055
used to
English 355 3.36 (.68)
answer*
Notes: * indicates using t-test instead of ANOVA.
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Survey Results 107

Table 5.23: Final regression model for the perception of management dimension
Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Site D .000 .000
Site A -.129 .107 -.050 -1.201 .230
Site B -.210 .123 -.070 -1.710 .088
Site C .056 .089 .028 .628 .530
Site E -.155 .092 -.073 -1.681 .093
Site F .292 .070 .199 4.182 < .001
Age .083 .026 .120 3.124 .002
Note: R2 = 0.073; Adjusted R2 = 0.064; p < 0.001

5.6.7. Multicultural workplace

Statistically different means are evident when the results of the multicultural

workplace dimension are classified based on respondent’s profession (Table 5.24). Nurses

have statistically lower means than surgeons and anaesthetists; higher means indicated a

more positive perception of the multicultural working environment.

Although profession is the only independent variable with statistical significance of

< 0.05 on univariable analysis, the results of multiple regression analysis show that site,

profession and gender of respondents are significant predictors of the multicultural

workplace dimension (Table 5.25). The backward stepwise regression shows that these

three independent variables predict about 7% of the multicultural workplace dimension (R 2

= 0.067, F (9,630) = 5.06, p < 0.001).

Survey Results 108

Table 5.24: Univariable results for multicultural workplace dimension
IV Groups N Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site A 52 3.40 (1.22) F (5, 335) =1.67 .141
B 37 3.66 (.87)
C 87 3.38 (1.15)
D 169 3.66 (.94)
E 80 3.72 (.85)
F 224 3.63 (.87)
Profession Surgeons 207 3.80 (.86)A F (3,354) = 7.72 < .001
Anaesthetists 49 3.83 (.75)B
Nurses 316 3.42 (.98)A,B
Anaesthesia 68 3.65 (1.15)
technicians
Gender* Male 300 3.62 (1.04) t (591) = .563 .754
Female 345 3.58 (.89)
Nationality Saudi 191 3.63 (1.12) F (2,502) = .313 .732
Arabic 161 3.64 (1.00)
Non-Arabic 264 3.57 (.82)
Age 18–29 182 3.56 (.93) F (3,639) = .177 .912
30–39 226 3.63 (.92)
40–49 140 3.60 (1.04)
50+ 95 3.61 (1.01)
Tenure <1 122 3.65 (.96) F (4,636) = 1.10 .357
1–3 193 3.50 (.89)
4–6 152 3.62 (1.01)
7–9 96 3.57 (1.01)
10+ 78 3.75 (.96)
Language Arabic 267 3.52 (1.12) t (472) = - 1.65 .100
used to English 355 3.65 (.83)
answer*
Notes: * indicates using t-test instead of ANOVA.
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Table 5.25: Final regression model for multicultural workplace dimension

Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Site D .000 .000
Site A -.235 .149 -.067 -1.575 .116
Site B .078 .172 .019 .452 .651
Site C -.353 .126 -.126 -2.810 .005
Site E -.002 .131 -.001 -.016 .987
Site F .053 .102 .026 .521 .602
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons .596 .104 .290 5.737 < .001
Anaesthetists .555 .156 .154 3.563 < .001
Anaesthesia technicians .389 .141 .125 2.763 .006
Male respondents .263 .099 .136 2.658 .008
Note: R2 = 0.067; Adjusted R2 = 0.054; p < 0.001

Survey Results 109

5.7. Summary
All dimensions of the safety attitude questionnaire, with the exception of perception

of management, show good psychometric properties. Five new items were tested for

dimensionality, resulting in a three-item dimension about perception of the multicultural

work environment. Site was the only independent variable that showed significant

prediction for all dimensions. Site, profession, age, gender and nationality were the

independent variables that significantly predicted one or more of the dimensions (Table

5.26).

Table 5.26: Significant independent variable predictors of each dimension

Site Profession Gender Age Nationality Language Tenure Experience
Teamwork
X X X
climate
Safety
X X X
climate
Job
X X
satisfaction
Stress
X X X
recognition
Working
X X X
conditions
Multicultural
X X X
workplace

Site F was more constantly significantly different than other sites, especially site D,

in almost all dimensions. Site D was the oldest and site F the newest hospital at the time of

data collection. In addition to the level of culture maturity, respondent’s age was a

predictor of safety culture. In those dimensions where age is a significant predictor,

younger professionals respond less positively than older ones. Nurses responded

differently on most dimensions where profession is a significant predictor. Non-Arabic

nationals respond significantly differently from other nationalities on the dimension where

nationality is a significant predictor (i.e., stress recognition).

Survey Results 110

 No statistical differences were found between the responses to the Arabic and

English versions of the questionnaire except on the stress recognition dimension. However,

that difference is not a significant predictor when multiple regression analysis was

conducted. Multiple regression results showed that the effect is more due to the other

independent variables. These results indicate the rigorousness of the translation of the

questionnaire.

5.8. Quality of communication scale

Respondents were asked to rate the quality of communication that they experienced

from surgeons, anaesthetists, operating theatre nurses, anaesthesia technicians,

perfusionists, surgical technicians, support staff, ward nurses, recovery personnel and ICU

personnel. The rating scale included six options: very low, low, adequate, high, very high

and not applicable.

The overall mean of the rating received by each professional group was calculated

at the professional group level. The responses were transformed into a 100-point scale so

the differences between means would be easier to compare and understand. The

transformation took place as follows: “very low” = 0 points, “low” = 25 points, “adequate”

= 50 points, “high” = 75 points and “very high” = 100 points.

The mean rating each professional group received from all respondents is reported

collectively (Table 5.27). Operating theatre nurses received the highest mean rating of

74.8, closely followed by surgical technicians ( = 71.1) and anaesthetists ( = 70.8).

Surgeons, recovery personnel and anaesthesia technicians receive similar means of 68.8,

68.7 and 68.2, respectively. The lowest rating is given to perfusionists, who obtain a mean

of 60.8.

Survey Results 111

Table 5.27: Mean rating each group received
Groups being rated Number of Mean rating 0–100 Percentage of “high”
respondents* (SD) and “very high”
ratings received
Surgeons 566 68.77 (22.65) 54.4
Anaesthetists 610 70.78 (22.91) 57.4
Nurses 614 74.80 (21.82) 67.9
Anaesthesia techs. 584 68.15 (24.68) 54.3
Perfusionists 249 60.84 (22.06) 41.4
Surgical techs. 502 71.12 (23.53) 59.2
Support staff 483 66.77 (22.62) 51.1
Ward nurses 561 63.68 (21.31) 45.6
Recovery personnel 577 68.67 (22.42) 57.0
ICU personnel 472 62.98 (24.76) 47.1
Note: * indicates the number of respondents who rated that specific professional group

The means of the ratings range between 60 and 75 on a 100-point scale, equivalent

to the range “adequate” to “high” quality of communication. This could be interpreted as

that there is room and need for improvement in the quality of communication between

professionals.

The analysis subsequently investigated whether respondents from the same

profession rated their peers differently. The results were reported according to the

respondents’ professional groups (i.e., surgeons, anaesthetists, operating theatre nurses and

anaesthesia technicians).

Respondents had the opportunity to rate the quality of communication they

experienced with their peers in their profession as well as professionals from other groups.

When data were aggregated at the professional level, it was found that each group rated

their quality of communication with their peers higher than the quality of communication

with other groups (Table 5.28). The quality of communication among each group of

Survey Results 112

professionals was perceived by respondents to be higher than the quality of communication

with members of other groups.

Table 5.28: Mean rating given by each group of professionals (in left column) to other groups
Professional group being rated
Professionals who performed the

Surgeons Anaesthetists Operating theatre Anaesthesia

nurses technicians
Surgeons 78.61 73.07 77.54 69.86
(n = 173) (n = 194) (n = 197) (n = 175)
Anaesthetists 76.09 82.93 78.41 82.41
rating

(n = 46) (n = 41) (n = 44) (n = 46)

Operating 60.7 63.95 71.17 60.32
theatre nurses (n = 278) (n = 301) (n = 300) (n = 293)
Anaesthesia 73.77 90 82.03 91.27
technicians (n = 61) (n = 65) (n = 64) (n = 63)
Overall mean 68.77 70.78 74.8 68.15
of rating (n = 566)* (n = 610)* (n = 614)* (n = 584)*
Notes: * The total number is different from the sum of all groups due to missing values in
“profession”.
Bolded numbers indicate the highest mean respondents from the left column gave to the rated
professions.

Although intra-profession rating was higher than inter-profession in each group, the

rating each group received from other non-peer groups was explored, and different results

were obtained. The mean rating each group of professionals received is lower when

excluding their peers’ ratings, except for operating theatre nurses (Table 5.29). Operating

theatre nurses rating their fellow operating theatre nurses higher than they rate other

professional groups, and receive even higher ratings from all other professional groups. To

illustrate, operating theatre nurses rate the quality of communication with their peers

higher than with any other group ( = 71.2), and receive a higher rating from surgeons ( =

77.5), anaesthetists ( = 78.4), and anaesthesia technicians ( = 82) (Table 5.28). This

indicates differences between groups’ rating behaviours, with some groups tending to give

higher ratings than other groups. Univariable and multivariable tests were performed to

understand the rating behaviour of the respondents and the professional groups.

Survey Results 113

Table 5.29: Mean rating each group received from other groups, including and excluding
ratings from their peer professionals from the same group
Group Mean rating received for each group
Including rating from their Excluding ratings from their
peers peers
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Surgeons 68.77 (22.65) 64.61 (22.44)
(n = 566) (n = 385)
Anaesthetists 70.78 (22.91) 70.13(22.97)
(n = 610) (n = 560)
Operating theatre nurses 74.80 (21.82) 78.61 (21.73)
(n = 614) (n = 305)
Anaesthesia technicians 68.15 (24.68) 65.56 (24.15)
(n = 584) (n = 514)
Note: n = the number of respondents included in the analysis

When the difference between inter-profession and intra-profession was observed, a

new independent variable was added in the univariable and multivariable tests. The new

independent variable was the rating that respondents gave to their colleagues from the

same profession. It included the ratings surgeons gave to communication with surgeons,

anaesthetists to anaesthetists, nurses to nurses and technicians to technicians. This intra-

profession rating would help in understanding the respondents’ rating behaviours, and was

named rating behaviour. Table 5.30 shows that rating behaviour is highly correlated with

all dependent variables, the rating each professional group received. Such results indicate

that there is a positive and strong relationship between respondents’ ratings of

communication with colleagues from the same profession and with other professions. In

other words, respondents who rated highly the quality of communication with colleagues

from their profession tended to rate communication with other professions highly also; and

vice versa.

Results of univariable analysis show that the mean ratings of the quality of

communication with surgeons are significantly different, based on all tested independent

variables (Table 5.31). Only three variables show significant prediction of the ratings when

multiple regression analysis is conducted (Table 5.32). Backward stepwise multiple

Survey Results 114

regressions show that rating behaviour, respondent’s profession and language can predict

48% of the ratings (R2 = 0.475, F (5,521) = 94.287, p < 0.001).

Table 5.30: Pearson’s correlation between intra-profession rating and ratings of all
professional groups
Independent Surgeons’ Anaesthetists’ Nurses’ received Technicians’
received ratings received ratings ratings received ratings
variable
Rating .635 .620 .754 .638
behaviour (p < .001) (p < .001) (p < .001) (p < .001)
n = 541 n = 561 n = 567 n = 539
Note: This table reports Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient (two-tailed).
This table shows that respondents who gave their colleagues from the same profession high ratings
(intra-profession rating) also gave other professional groups high ratings.

Univariable results for the ratings received by anaesthetists are similar to the results

of ratings received by surgeons. The mean ratings of quality of communication with

anaesthetists are statistically significantly different based on the categories of all tested

independent variables (Table 5.33). The backward stepwise multiple regression test

indicates that rating behaviour, respondent’s profession and language can predict only

about 44% of the ratings (R2 = 0.440, F (5,541) = 84.970, p < 0.001) (Table 5.34).

Survey Results 115

Table 5.31: Univariable analysis for rating received by surgeons
IV Categories Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site* A (n = 46) 75.00 (22.97)a F (5,560) = 4.828 < 0.001
B (n = 32) 70.31 (23.28)
C (n = 62) 77.02 (20.89)B, d
D (n = 146) 71.06 (23.98)c
E (n = 71) 65.85 (22.85)d
F (n = 209) 64.11 (20.90)a, B,
Profession* Surgeons (n = 173) 78.61(20.30)A F (3,554) = 28.810 <0.001
Anaesthetists (n = 46) 76.09 (21.70)B
Nurses (n = 278) 60.70 (20.93)A,B,C
Technicians (n = 61) 73.77 (24.34)C
Gender^ Male (n = 257) 77.92 (21.22) t (560) = 9.282 < 0.001
Female (n = 305) 61.31 (21.05)
Language^ Arabic (n = 299) 76.59 (21.37) t (542) = 8.967 < 0.001
Non-Arabic (n = 245) 60.10 (21.29)
Age* < 30 (n = 170) 65.29 (22.62) A F (3,558) = 4.708 0.003
30–39 (n = 197) 68.15 (22.10) b
40–49 (n = 120) 70.42 (22.45)
50 + (n = 75) 76.67 (23.01)A, b
Tenure* < 1 (n = 106) 70.75 (20.84) F (4,554) =3.051 0.017
1–3 (n = 172) 64.83 (22.26)
4–6 (n = 129) 67.83 (22.36)
7–9 (n = 83) 72.89 (22.16)
10 + (n = 69) 73.55 (26.04)
Note: * one-way ANOVA test; ^ independent sample t-test.
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p < 0.01).

Table 5.32: Multiple regression results for ratings received by surgeons

Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Rating behaviour 15.889 .907 .595 17.510 < .001
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons 9.221 1.980 .188 4.657 < .001
Anaesthetists 5.292 3.006 .061 1.760 .079
Technicians -2.946 2.833 -.040 -1.040 .299
Arabic speaking 5.195 1.878 .113 2.766 .006

Note: R2 = 0.475, Adjusted R2 = 0.470, p < 0.001

Survey Results 116

Table 5.33: Univariable analysis for rating received by anaesthetists
IV Categories Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site* A (n = 48) 71.88 (23.42) F (5,560) = 2.227 0.050
B (n = 35) 75.71 (21.43)
C (n = 84) 76.79 (23.22)
D (n = 157) 68.47 (25.18)
E (n = 77) 71.75 (22.71)
F (n = 209) 68.66 (20.77)
Profession* Surgeons (n =194) 73.07 (23.17)a, B,C F (3,697) = 33.025 <0.001
Anaesthetists (n = 41) 82.93 (19.72)a, D
Nurses (n = 301) 63.95 (21.13)B, D,E
Technicians (n = 65) 90.00 (17.00)C,E
Gender^ Male (n = 280) 79.29 (22.49) t (604) = 8.887 < 0.001
Female (n = 326) 63.65 (20.79)
Language^ Arabic (n = 336) 78.65 (22.19) t (585) = 9.875 < 0.001
Non-Arabic (n = 251) 61.16 (19.88)
Age* < 30 (n = 170) 66.91 (22.20)A F (3,600) = 6.817 < 0.001
30–39 (n = 210) 69.76 (23.12)B
40–49 (n = 136) 71.51 (22.40)c
50 + (n = 88) 80.11 (22.79)A, B, c
Tenure* < 1 (n =103) 69.42 (20.69) F (4,598) = 3.319 0.011
1–3 (n =185) 67.57 (21.70)
4–6 (n = 146) 70.38 (23.85)
7–9 (n =94) 77.13 (21.89)
10 + (n = 75) 74.33 (26.31)
Note: * one-way ANOVA test; ^ independent sample t-test
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Table 5.34: Multiple regression results for ratings received by anaesthetists

Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Rating behaviour 14.062 .923 .528 15.233 < .001
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons -.598 1.980 -.012 -.302 .763
Anaesthetists 8.545 3.004 .098 2.844 .005
Technicians 8.545 2.784 .118 3.069 .002
Arabic speaking 7.790 1.860 .170 4.189 < .001
Note: R2 = 0.440, Adjusted R2 = 0.435, p < 0.001

Survey Results 117

 Ratings received by operating theatre nurses differ significantly on all the

independent variables except respondent’s site and age (Table 5.35). Despite this

difference, multiple regression results reveal the same independent variables. Backward

stepwise multiple regression analysis indicates that rating behaviour, respondent’s

profession and language can predict about 58% of the received ratings (R2 = 0.577, F

(5,547) = 149.162, p < 0.001) (Table 5.36).

Table 5.35: Univariable analysis for rating received by nurses

IV Categories Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site* A (n = 49) 73.47 (24.16) F (5,608) = 0.328 0.896
B (n = 35) 71.43 (25.83)
C (n = 82) 75.91 (22.72)
D (n = 159) 74.21 (23.10)
E (n = 79) 75.95 (22.80)
F (n= 210) 75.24 (18.78)
Profession* Surgeons (n = 197) 77.54 (21.28)A F (3,601) = 6.703 < 0.001
Anaesthetists (n = 41) 78.41 (21.29)
Nurses (n = 300) 71.17 (21.39)A,B
Technicians (n = 64) 82.03 (23.35)B
Gender^ Male (n = 282) 79.96 (22.26) t (608) = 5.418 < 0.001
Female (n =328) 70.58 (20.49)
Language^ Arabic (n = 343) 80.10 (21.45) t (589) = 6.873 < 0.001
Non-Arabic (n = 248) 68.04 (20.48)
Age* < 30 (n = 177) 74.29 (22.84) F (3,604) = 0.542 0.653
30–39 (n = 211) 75.24 (22.23)
40–49 (n = 131) 73.66 (20.64)
50 + (n = 89) 77.25 (20.86)
Tenure* < 1 (n = 113) 75.89 (21.63) F (4,602) = 1.393 0.006
1–3 (n = 186) 72.45 (22.59)
4–6 (n = 141) 74.29 (22.15)
7–9 (n = 95) 78.16 (19.72)
10 + (n = 72) 77.08 (21.29)
Note: * one-way ANOVA test; ^ independent sample t-test.
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Survey Results 118

Table 5.36: Multiple regression results for ratings received by nurses
Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Rating behaviour 16.010 .994 .546 16.101 < .001
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons -1.796 2.178 -.032 -.825 .410
Anaesthetists 10.007 3.217 .106 3.111 .002
Technicians 10.769 2.951 .140 3.650 <.001
Arabic speaking 8.911 2.013 .117 4.427 <.001
Note: R2 = 0.577, Adjusted R2 = 0.573, p < 0.001

Mean ratings given to the quality of communication with anaesthesia technicians

differ significantly based on each independent variable (Table 5.37). However, multiple

regression shows similar results as in ratings given to other groups. Backward stepwise

multiple regression indicates that rating behaviour, respondent’s profession and language

can predict 48% of the ratings (R2 = 0.484, F (5,519) = 97.487, p < 0.001) (Table 5.38).

Consistent results of multivariable analysis are obtained across all the ratings of

quality of communication with different professional groups. Rating behaviour,

respondent’s profession and language are significant predictors of the ratings. Rating

behaviour recognises that people differ when they communicate with each other. Some

people are positive in nature, which is reflected in their views of and perceptions about

their experiences in communicating with others. This independent variable indicates that

respondents who view the quality of communication with their colleagues from the same

profession positively hold more positive views about communication with other

professions as well. In addition to rating behaviour, respondent’s profession is a significant

predictor of the way the group rates. Generally, the anaesthesia team (anaesthetists and

anaesthesia technicians) rated differently from the surgical team (surgeons and nurses).

Nurses in particular show different rating behaviour. Finally, a respondent’s language

Survey Results 119

plays a significant role in rating: Arabic-speaking professionals rate the quality of

communication with others significantly higher than non-Arabic speakers.

Table 5.37: Univariable analysis for rating received by anaesthesia technicians

IV Categories Mean (SD) Statistics Sig.
Site* A (n = 49) 72.96 (23.29) F (5,578) = 2.567 .026
B (n = 33) 77.27 (27.50
C (n = 75) 68.67 (20.99)
D (n = 148) 67.74 (25.96)
E (n = 74) 71.62 (23.89)
F (n = 205) 64.39 (24.63)
Profession* Surgeons (n = 175) 69.86 (21.32)A, B, C F (3,573) = 40.502 < .001
Anaesthetists (n = 46) 82.61 (22.28) A, D
Nurses (n = 293) 60.32 (24.35) B, D, E
Technicians (n = 63) 91.27 (16.29) C, E
Gender^ Male (n = 266) 77.54 (22.69) t (579) = 8.871 < .001
Female (n = 315) 60.40 (23.63)
Language^ Arabic (n = 315) 77.22 (21.56) t (561) = 9.768 < .001
Non-Arabic (n = 248) 58.17 (24.67)
Age* < 30 (n = 169) 68.34 (25.08) F (3,576) = 2.990 .031
30–39 (n = 201) 66.17 (25.49)a
40–49 (n = 125) 66.60 (22.21)
50 + (n = 85) 75.29 (24.85)a
Tenure* < 1 (n = 98) 72.96 (22.32) F (4,573) = 3.647 .006
1–3 (n =184) 65.08 (23.67)
4–6 (n =137) 64.96 (26.16)
7–9 (n =90) 74.17 (23.54)
10 + (n = 69) 69.20 (26.82)
Note: * one-way ANOVA test; ^ independent sample t-test
Same subscript letter indicates statistical difference – capital letter (p < 0.05); small letters (p <
0.01).

Table 5.38: Multiple regression results for ratings received by anaesthesia technicians
Variable B SE-B β t Sig.
Rating behaviour 16.010 .994 .546 16.101 < .001
Nurses .000 .000
Surgeons -1.796 2.178 -.032 -.825 .410
Anaesthetists 10.007 3.217 .106 3.111 .002
Technicians 10.769 2.951 .140 3.650 < .001
Arabic speaking 8.911 2.013 .117 4.427 < .001

Note: R2 = 0.484, Adjusted R2 = 0.479, p < 0.001

Survey Results 120

5.9. Results of open-ended questions
Three open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire. The first was about

the effect of the local culture on patient safety. The second asked respondents to offer

suggestions to improve patients’ safety. Finally, respondents were asked if they wanted to

add any comments, giving them the chance to express in their own words the issues that

they thought important and related to the investigated topic.

Sixty per cent (n = 387) of the respondents answered a minimum of one question of

the three. A total of 644 responses were provided, of which 231 responses (35.9%) to the

cultural aspect question, 358 responses (55.6%) to the safety improvement question and 55

(8.5%) additional comments. While some positive comments were provided about the need

to maintain the existing level of patient safety practice, the majority of comments were

about issues that needed improvement, in spite of more than 80% (n = 528) of participants

indicating earlier that the overall patient safety in their facility was either good or

excellent.

Respondents were given the space to respond to the questions as they wished, so

some provided more than one comment for a single question resulting in a total of 842

codes. As the comments were provided and coded in relation to safety, they fell naturally

into three major themes (Table 5.39). The first related to issues needing to be addressed at

the employee level (253 codes; 30.0%). The second related to issues needing to be

improved at the patient level (292 codes; 34.7%). The third related to issues needing to be

improved at the hospital level (297 codes; 35.3%). These three themes are the main

components of any health care delivery, indicating the breadth of the responses provided.

Most of the codes on the first and third themes were from nurses’ comments: 178 (70.3%)

and 209 (71.6%) respectively. The second theme was mainly composed of codes derived

from physicians’ comments (231 codes; 79.1%). Despite the majority of comments on a

given theme coming from one or two professions, all had similar value in enriching the

Survey Results 121

data; and within each theme or sub-theme, professionals from different groups and

backgrounds raised the same issues. This led to the conclusion that while issues under

discussion were more meaningful to a certain group of professionals, they are also still

relevant to other health care workers in operating theatres regardless of their background or

specialty. One can assume that these issues were more related to concept of safety culture

in operating theatres in general, rather than to a certain group or profession.

Table 5.39: Themes and sub-themes from analysis of open-ended responses

Major theme Sub-theme Main issues raised in the sub-theme
Issues with Cultural differences’ effect Better communication (97 codes)
on teamwork and Better teamwork (84 codes)
health care
communication
professionals (181 codes)
(254 codes)
Communicating and dealing Better communication and dealing with
with patients patients (40 codes)
(73 codes) Need for proper documentation for patients
(33 codes)

Issues with Specific national cultural Gender issues (53 codes)

health care barriers (158 codes) General cultural issues (41 codes)
consumers
Health-related barriers Low level of health literacy (78 codes)
(292 codes)
(134 codes) Mistrust of medicine, hospital and the team
(56 codes)
Issues within Working conditions Better equipment and adequate supply (40
(117 codes) codes)
the healthcare
More staff (42 codes)
system Better system (35 codes)
(297 codes)
Policy and procedures Strict application of policy and procedures
(104 codes) (51 codes)
Active safety and quality department (53
codes)

Education for employees Need for more education (45 codes)

(76 codes) Targeted education (31 codes)

5.9.1. Issues with health care professionals (employees)

This theme discusses the identified issues needing to be improved at the employee

level. It is divided into two sub-themes: issues in dealing with other employees, and issues

in dealing with patients. The first sub-theme focuses on problems related to teamwork and

Survey Results 122

communication. Cultural differences were the focus of the issues raised in this sub-theme.

The second consists of issues centred on communicating and dealing with patients. Issues

identified by respondents and their suggested solutions are both presented.

Cultural differences’ effect on teamwork and

communication
Comments in this sub-theme focused on the need for teamwork and communication

improvement. The issue was summarised by the following comment: “there is no good

communication or any teamwork; we need good communication and teamwork”. The

implication for communication and teamwork was indicated in the comment “we need to

solve these problems, communication and teamwork, to avoid risking patient safety”.

Anthropological aspects of culture, including the way they been handled, were indicated to

affect the quality of teamwork and communication which ultimately affect patient safety

negatively.

Differences in cultural backgrounds were linked to problems with teamwork and

communication. As health care workers came from different cultures and backgrounds,

respondents indicated that “different nationalities are negatively affecting the quality of

work”. Some of the comments highlighted that “there is favouritism with no fair treatment

to other team members” and that “equality should be improved”. It was also added that

“we have a problem that the employees are speaking in their native language at all times”.

These comments and similar ones were indicative of the concerns about the effect of

different anthropological aspects of culture (i.e. cultural background and the use of native

language) on the quality of work environment.

Different comments related the negative cultural effect on the work environment to

the way these differences been handled. It was argued that “diverse cultures in the hospital

may increase the quality of patient safety if used appropriately not in competition about

which culture is best”. It was suggested that “teamwork should be conducted in a

Survey Results 123

professional manner based on the person’s work, not nationality or religion” and that there

should be “more cooperation between all nationalities, not only people from the same

nationality”. It was suggested that “there should be respect” to improve teamwork.

The comments were not specific to cultural differences, but indicated that

professional groups needed to exert more effort to cooperate. According to respondents,

“there should be more collaboration between nurses, surgeons and anaesthetists in regard

to patient safety” and “sticking to common sense behaviour and cooperating between the

workers here is the key success point”.

Along with cooperation between different groups and departments, communication

improvement was needed at all levels. Comments about the need for better communication,

such as “we need effective communication between the members of the surgical team in

each department and across the departments”, were presented. The importance of

communication improvement was advocated: “the most important single factor is

communication which can elevate the standard of safety”. Specific comments about other

issues to do with communication were also provided.

Some respondents mentioned the need for “proper communication between the staff

and the supervisors”, “regular departmental meeting to discuss errors and problems to find

solutions” and “the improvement of information dissemination of patient safety and patient

information to all team members”. Other respondents commented on the current

communication process by indicating that “there should be two-way communication

between staff and management, not as what we have now, just one-way communication

from management to staff leaving them [staff] frustrated and their problems not solved”. It

was suggested that “listening [better] to the comments of the surgical team, discussing

them and trying to solve them would improve everything”.

The quality of handovers was another communication issue that was raised. It

should be recognised that the word “endorsement” is used in Saudi Arabia instead of

Survey Results 124

“handover” (Alyamany, 2013). Respondents indicated that “[the] improper endorsement

that we have now needs to be fixed”, emphasising the need for “proper endorsement”. It

was suggested that this could be improved “by making the endorsement procedures much

simpler” while maintaining the importance of “[the] timely and complete handover of

pertinent information”. As improvement of communication was identified as an important

issue, it was indicated that there were some issues that could contribute to the lack of

communication.

Teamwork and communication were important issues raised by the respondents.

Their comments covered a wide range of teamwork and communication issues.

Significantly, many of the teamwork and communication issues raised could be linked to

cultural differences between respondents. There were concerns about the handling of these

cultural and linguistic differences which was claimed to be ineffective resulting in negative

effect on the work environment.

Communicating and dealing with patients

The respondents identified concerns about poor communication and improper

dealing with patients as issues that needed to be improved. They indicated that “the lack of

communication” and “minimal communication with patients” were issues affecting the

safety of patients. They also mentioned the need to “improve effective communication

between patients and all members of the surgical team”, indicating the importance of the

involvement of all team members. The existence of “improper behaviour towards some

patients” and the need to “improve the dealing with patients” were highlighted and

expressed by more than one respondent.

Other comments related to this sub-theme focused on the process of explanation

and preparation of patients for surgical procedures. Some comments indicated the need for

more explanations about surgical procedures for patients. Respondents commented that

Survey Results 125

“most of the patients are not aware of their rights and they don’t get enough details about

their surgeries” and that “patients need more explanation about their procedures”. In

addition, comments such as “[the] proper preparation of patients including documentation

would reduce the turnaround time and save theatre time” implied some issues with the

preparation of patients for their surgical procedures.

According to respondents, communicating and dealing with patients needed to be

improved to achieve better care for them. They pointed out that improper preparation of

patients wasted employees’ time, which sometimes forced them to work for longer hours to

finish their booked patients.

5.9.2. Issues with health care consumers (patients)

The comments relating to patients were divided into two parts: specific national

cultural barriers and health-related barriers. The former was more about cultural practices

that were seen as hindering the safety of the patients. The latter, on the other hand, was

related to Saudi Arabian patients’ health practices and beliefs.

Specific national cultural barriers

Saudi Arabian cultural barriers were mainly concerned with: gender segregation,

patients’ desire for privacy and language barriers. Gender issues were raised mostly by

respondents from non-Arabic backgrounds. They commented on the lack of gender

interaction and its effect on the delivery of safe care. The respondents indicated that “the

social norms of seclusion”, such as the “limited interaction between male and female”,

result in “difficulty when dealing with [patients of] the other gender”. Others noted that

“dealing with a patient from the other gender makes a barrier between the doctor and the

patient”, and that this barrier affects the delivery of proper assessment and care; they

pointed out that “no proper contact [occurs] when taking medical history with other gender

patients”. Other comments indicated that some of the patients asked to be cared for by a

Survey Results 126

provider of the same gender. Respondents’ examples included “some patients refuse to be

cared for by the opposite gender”, “some female patients ask for a no-male operating

theatre” and “female staff not attending for male patients, and vice versa”. These could be

difficult given the skewed gender balance in the professional groups, indicated in the

respondents’ demographic results.

In addition to gender segregation issues, the respondents described Saudi patients

as conservative and seeking a high level of privacy. They indicated that the local culture

was based on “too much desire for privacy” and that “people here are so conservative, we

have to dig for more information from the patient and use more time for doing that”. Such

a desire for privacy can affect the quality of the work provided: “[s]ome patients refuse to

allow nurses to check them in the holding area before being pushed to the operating room”

and “it is not easy to assess female patients when they are covering their faces; difficulty

also arises due to reluctance to speak to a male health care provider”. Other respondents

indicated that “patients feel embarrassed and anxious when we take their cover off before

the operation, we cannot operate on a fully covered patient”; they pointed out that it is a

common practice to “minimise the exposure to whatever is necessary”.

Additionally, most respondents from non-Arabic backgrounds identified the

language barrier as an issue affecting proper health care provision. They commented that

“[the] language barrier is a big problem” because “not all patients are able to understand

English and not all staff are able to speak and understand Arabic”. It was pointed out that

“the language difference will affect the contact with staff and will affect the patient safety

in the OR eventually”.

Some respondents suggested that the availability of a translator could help bridge

the gap: “[the] appointment of a translator would probably improve the performance of

non-Arabic staff”. Others felt that “there should be at least some Saudi staff to help in

interpreting the patients’ needs”. Some suggestions were that “we need to improve our

Survey Results 127

Arabic communication” and the hospital could help by “providing Arabic courses for non-

Arabic speaking staff”. This was summarised in one of the comments: “every

communication with the patients should be confirmed with an Arabic-speaking person and

explanations should be provided in the patients’ dialect to make sure there is no

misunderstanding, so the safety can be maintained”.

Health-related barriers
The respondents raised two important issues that they claimed affected patient

safety and the quality of care provided: the low level of health literacy and mistrust of the

medical team. Respondents pointed out a need for more health-related education and

awareness programs for the public. They also highlighted the effect of this low level of

health literacy on the relationship between health care providers and patients.

According to respondents, “most patients have low medical and health knowledge”;

the “lack of medical awareness” results in them “not [being] able to communicate with the

patients as required because of their limited medical knowledge”. Other comments

highlighted the weaknesses related to a low knowledge of surgical health—namely, “[a]

lack of understanding about the surgical process, especially anaesthesia, and their safety

issues” because “patients take their information from unqualified people, sometimes from

outside the medical field”. Respondents commented that “we should educate the patients

about surgical procedures and anaesthesia through leaflets and explanatory instructions”

whereas others suggested the “need [for] home education programs”. A “misunderstanding

of the rights of the doctor and the rights of the patients” was a related concern for some of

the responding doctors.

The majority indicated a need for some sort of education programs for patients,

regardless of the methods used to promote health awareness. Some respondents indicated

that most patients do not know the importance of their medical history for making a proper

Survey Results 128

assessment, and this led to patients not fully revealing it: “patients hide some medical

information that could be important in diagnosis and treatment”. Respondents identified

the “difficulty of getting medical history right because patients hide important

information” as a problem that could increase the risk for patients. Some comments were

specifically about surgical history, mentioning that “patients [not telling] the treating

doctor of other medical problems such as complications from previous surgeries affects

patient safety”. Others noted that “patients get treated in different hospitals, so they have

files in several hospitals and their medical history is not complete”. Hiding medical history

could be seen as one part of the low level of health literacy and could be addressed in

educational programs.

The other issue raised was the lack of trust in modern medicine, which led to

widespread use of Saudi Arabian traditional medicine. Respondents identified lack of trust

as a problem, mentioning “patients not trusting the doctors” and “trust between treating

doctor and the patient should be improved”. The lack of trust was attributed by some to

“the large number of medical errors and the improper handling by the management”.

However, other respondents offered a different reason: “some patients do not believe in the

modern medicine and they insist on using the traditional medicine”. They pointed out the

effect of traditional medicine in preventing early diagnosis and treatment: “using

traditional medicine makes them come [to the hospital] with advanced stages of disease”;

in particular, they recommended that “traditional medicine usage for burns and wounds

should be changed as it has a serious effect on patient safety”.

The respondents agreed that this lack of trust was evident and resulted in a lack of

cooperation from patients, commenting that “patients do not follow medical advice”

especially “instructions about operations and post-op[erative] care”. The relationship

between patients and health care personnel needs to be improved.

Survey Results 129

 Some health practices and beliefs were seen as interruptions of the provision of

complete and safe care for the Saudi Arabian patients. Furthermore, some of the cultural

practices, such as gender segregation, were thought to hinder the quality of care provided.

Language difference was also advocated to be an additional burden for the non-Arabic

speaking professionals.

5.9.3. Issues within the health system (hospitals)

Three main issues were identified at the hospital level: working conditions, policy

and procedures, and the need for more education and training. These issues complement

each other and help in understanding issues around safety culture in hospitals.

Working conditions
Respondents identified issues that were grouped under the working conditions sub-

theme. They indicated a shortage of staff, through comments such as “there is not

sufficient staff to handle the number of the cases” and “more personnel are needed”. They

indicated that the shortage of staff affects patient safety. One respondent stated outright

that “we have a very seriously dangerous lack of personnel, it affects patient safety”.

Another respondent argued the need for more staff by stating “any goal of patient safety in

a hospital, like ours, could be achieved with proper staffing”. Most respondents specified

the need for qualified and experienced physicians and nurses, making comments such as

“we need more experienced staff” and “[we can improve by] recruiting more trained and

highly qualified doctors and nurses”. Some comments specifically advocated recruiting

and training local staff: “[w]e need more local staff, so they can stay longer” and “there is a

problem with short turnover, the management should recruit more staff and try to make the

current staff stay longer; I think more local staff should be recruited”.

In addition to comments about the shortage of staff in operating theatres,

respondents pointed out the need for proper instruments and adequate supplies. When

Survey Results 130

asked what needed to be improved, several indicated the need for newer high-quality

equipment. Examples included “supplies and equipment in OR [need to be improved]”,

“provide proper equipment”, “high-quality equipment should be provided” and “provide

adequate supply of surgical items”. Others pointed out the need for the proper equipment

to deliver proper and safe care to patients, stating that “providing the proper equipment

will help in finishing the job safer and on time” and “providing all the necessary equipment

and instruments for the best care”.

In more general terms relating to working conditions, respondents identified several

issues that concerned them. They pointed out the need for a better work environment with

less stress. They indicated that they needed “less pressure on surgical team”. This pressure

stemmed from long working hours and the number of on-calls each week, evidenced by

comments such as “reduce long working hours”, “earlier handover should be considered in

long operations” and “we have too many on-call duties in a week; reduce them for each

person”. Others indicated that they needed support to cope with the stress: “[we need]

supportive management for all staff”, “encouragement for good work” and “creating a

friendly environment”. Other comments indicated the importance of financial incentives

for the work in operating theatres, stating that “the financial incentives are not good

enough for the level of work and effort required”. Some respondents identified the need for

a non-punitive system for responding to adverse events: “it should not matter who did

wrong, but what was wrong and how it affects patient safety” and “we need to employ the

improvement principle not the punishment one”.

The respondents indicated in this sub-theme the stressors they felt could harm

patients and might affect their safety. These included a shortage of staff, a lack of proper

instruments and adequate supplies, long working hours and frequent on-call duties, a lack

of incentives and the lack of a non-punitive system to handle errors. They indicated the

Survey Results 131

need for support from management to solve these issues and improve the working

conditions, which would ultimately improve patient safety.

Policy and procedures

Respondents identified some issues with current policy and procedures, their

application, and the need for change in the system. Some indicated the need to update

policies and procedures, pointing out the need for “more infection control measures in

OR”. Others advocated a more active role for the safety department, indicating a need “[to]

improve the quality and safety department” or noting “we need periodical reports about our

safety performance” and “doing monthly audits”.

Other comments were about specific issues with policy and procedures. The

respondents indicated a need for “less paperwork” and “less documentation”. This issue

stemmed from the need to repeat the same information in different forms, affecting the

quality of care provided for each patient: “[we need to] reduce the paperwork so we can

take care of the patient more than writing the same information over and over” and “I find

it difficult to find time to look after patients because of the repeated documentation of the

same information in different forms; we need documentation only not to repeat

everything”.

Despite the need to update policy and procedures, more comments showed concern

about their application. Some respondents indicated that “medical and non-medical staff

are not compliant to the policy and procedures and standard practice” and “we need strict

and complete application of the protocols”. Others pointed out the need to “update and

apply policy and procedures; make sure everyone is following them”. Comments like “all

members of the health care team should adhere to the policy and procedures, not only the

nurses” and “need strict application of protocols, not only by nurses, but all regardless of

job, culture and especially nationality” implied the possibility of differences between

Survey Results 132

professional groups in operating theatres with regard to privilege and authority. This was

supported by comments like “all workers should get equal responsibilities” and the

accusation that there is “unfairness in duties’ distribution” as well as the suggestion that

there should be “more attention to the workload and the assessment of the work”. The

combination of the last remark—the unfair distribution of workload—with the problems

raised about staff shortages and long working hours could result in high risks for patients.

“[We need] respect for the operating theatre’s time by not adding new cases at the end of

the day” was an example of how some individual actions (without consulting others) might

affect the whole team.

Updating, revising and fairly applying policy and procedures were important issues

raised by respondents. They pointed out that patient safety could be affected by some of

the policies, such as repeated paperwork, or by the lack of equality in the application of the

policy and procedures. The issues raised here may be directly linked to the stressors in the

first sub-theme (working conditions). Respondents claimed that proper and fair application

of policy and procedures would improve the safety culture in operating theatres.

Education for employees

The respondents identified a need for more education and training in general:

“continuous education for all personnel” and “more education and training for all staff”

through “regular posters and workshops”, “conferences and external training” and “cross-

training with other schools and hospitals”. Some of the respondents identified a lack of

adequate education specifically about patient safety. They wanted “more education on

safety of employees and patients” and “more training and seminars for safety and quality”

according to “the latest medical research and evidence-based”. They underscored the

importance of “understanding the requirements of the cultural aspects of the local people”

and incorporating them into patient safety education. Some non-Arabic staff commented

Survey Results 133

that “we need more education about the culture and the people”. The respondents

expressed their desire for more education and training, especially in the field of patient

safety.

Participants in this sub-them identified their need for more continuous education

and training, especially in the field of patient safety. They pointed out the need for some

cultural education about their patients in order to provide proper and safe care. They also

identified in the other two sub-themes some stressors related to the system in addition to

those caused by the policy and procedures. The shortage of staff, supplies and proper

instruments combined with long working hours and duties, as well as the improper

application of policy and procedures, were the main issues raised that could affect patient

safety. The respondents believed they received insufficient incentives to compensate for

these stressors.

5.9.4. Summary of open-ended results

Results from the open-ended questions uncovered some important issues that

concerned professionals working in operating theatres. Collectively they revealed problems

concerning patient safety at all levels: patients, employees and hospital. Anthropological

aspects of culture stood out as a major influence of patient safety.

Communication and teamwork were affected by cultural differences among

employees. Respondents complained about others using a language that was not

understood by other team members, which negatively affected the quality of

communication. Concerns were also raised about inappropriate handling of multicultural

members of the workforce, who were not given the chance to uncover their full potential.

Employees indicated that they were dealt with based on their cultural background, which

hampered a positive work environment. Differences between employees and patients were

also manifested in difficulties dealing and communicating with their patients.

Survey Results 134

 In addition to stress exerted by working long hours due to shortage of staff in high

demanding jobs, inadequate application of policy and procedures was also a source of

stress. Respondents complained about the selective enforcement of rules on certain groups

of employees such as nurses, but not all. Some respondents voiced concern about the need

for a non-punitive safety system in their workplace.

While the majority of comments from nurses were on the first and the last themes,

physicians’ comments were mainly about issues with local patients. Mistrust of medical

teams and low health literacy, along with some cultural issues, were the respondents’ main

concerns (mainly the physicians). They indicated that some patients did not follow medical

teams’ instructions, sought traditional medicine over modern medicine, and hid important

medical history from the medical teams. It was suggested that health education for the

public should be improved.

5.10. Summary of results of first phase

Along with the demographic information, this chapter has presented the analysis of

the safety attitude scale, the new dimension, the quality of communication ratings and

open-ended comments. Different but consistent results from first phase data were revealed.

Nurses were demographically different from other professional groups. Unlike the other

responding groups, nurses were predominantly female, and of non-Arabic nationality.

They consistently responded differently on most of the scale’s dimensions.

Work site was the most consistent significant predictor of all dimensions.

Significant differences were detected between respondents from sites D and F, the oldest

and newest hospitals at the time of data collection.

Culture was the link between the previous two independent variables. The non-

Arabic female-dominated profession, that is, nurses, responded differently than the Arabic

male-dominated professions, that is, surgeons, anaesthetists and anaesthesia technicians.

Survey Results 135

This was also evident in the way that respondents rated the quality of communication with

other professional groups, where nurses’ rating behaviours were different to those of the

other professionals. The language that respondents spoke in their homes was another

significant predictor of their rating behaviours. Non-Arabic language-speaking

respondents, of whom the majority were nurses, behaved differently than Arabic-speaking

professionals. Language can also be linked to another common theme, culture.

Respondents identified culture as an important issue in safety when they indicated

their need for more education about the Saudi culture. Teamwork was reported to be

negatively affected by the improper handling of the multicultural workforce. Respondents

also pointed out the need for better communication between staff and patients, and between

staff members. Respondents linked both the lack of proper communication and the lack of

understanding of Saudi culture to safety concerns. These concerns were exacerbated by the

different stressors in the work environment. Shortage of staff, unavailability of

instruments, inadequate supplies, insufficient incentives and long working hours were

among the most important concerns raised by respondents.

The second phase, employing critical case sampling (see Section [Link]), targeted

non-Arabic speaking female nurses from site D and site F to get rich information about the

influence of culture on safety culture. Female nurses were considered the critical case as

they generally responded differently from their counterparts on most dimensions. In

addition, ratings of the quality of communication showed that non-Arabic speaking

professionals, of whom the majority were nurses, had significantly lower perceptions of the

quality of communication with others. Furthermore, nurses’ responses in open-ended

questions also supported the decision to interview them. The choice of sites was intended

to get maximum exposure of respondents. As responses from these sites were significantly

different across most of the dimensions, it was assumed that wider representation would be

achieved by interviewing participants from both.

Survey Results 136

Chapter 6: Interview Findings
We need a safety culture to empower people. –Participant 6

This chapter presents the findings of the qualitative phase, which comprises one-on-

one semi-structured interviews. This phase was conducted to enhance the understanding of

cultural contexts that might affect patient safety. The interviews were conducted with non-

Arabic female nurses with a wide range of experiences and backgrounds. A total of 20

interviews were conducted, with 10 participants from each of two hospitals.

6.1. Participants’ demographic information

The participants came from different cultures and backgrounds. The majority were

from the Philippines (n = 9) and India (n = 7), which matches with the most commonly

reported non-Arabic nationalities in the first phase. There were also three South Africans

and one Indonesian.

Participants’ age and years of experience in Saudi Arabia were diverse. Six

participants were younger than 30 and four were aged between 30 and 40. Half the

participants were older than 40 (7 between 40 and 49; 3 older than 50). Most had been

working in Saudi Arabia for more than seven years at the time of the interviews (8

participants between 7 and 9 years; 6 participants for over 10 years). Four participants had

worked for a period of four to six years; only two had worked for fewer than three years.

Such a group with so much experience enriched the data with their reflections on

their experiences and perceptions. The data also benefited greatly from the fresh

perspective of the younger participants with shorter experiences in Saudi Arabia. The

Interview Findings 137

diversity of age and experience helped achieve a holistic understanding of issues facing

non-Arabic female nurses specifically, and operating theatre teams in general.

All participants volunteered to take part in the interviews. They talked openly about

their feelings, experiences and views on important ways to improve safety culture. Their

willingness and openness to discuss the issues related to safety culture in their clinical

workplaces showed the importance of the topic to them. They were passionate about the

interview topics and discussed the issues with enthusiasm, sincerely looking for solutions.

Despite each participant’s unique contribution to the research data, they all had common

feelings and similar experiences. These differences and commonalities helped uncover the

very important issues presented in the rest of this chapter.

6.2. Findings
The findings presented in this chapter were based on a thematic analysis of the

interview transcripts. Patient safety was embedded within each theme and sub-theme, and

the influence of the identified issues on patient safety was linked within the thematic

structure of the analysis.

The quoted texts were transcribed from spoken English; almost all participants

spoke English as a second language. Instead of correcting any grammatical errors, the

researcher has maintained the transcripts in their original form in an effort not to distort the

original meaning.

Three main themes were extracted from the transcribed text of the interviews

(Table 6.1). The first theme, culture’s influence on work environment, concerned the link

between culture and the work environment. Participants talked about the benefits and

difficulties of working in a surgical team with health care professionals from different

cultural backgrounds. They pointed out the effect of the local culture on their work

environment, including their difficulties in taking part in this culture, which led to their

Interview Findings 138

feelings of being foreigners with minimal integration with the locals and the local culture.

The effect of culture and cultural background on the work environment, employees and

patient safety was evident in participants’ descriptions.

Cultural difficulties were also manifested in the second theme, safety culture and

patient safety, where participants talked about these issues surfacing in their everyday

work. They emphasised the importance of teamwork, respect and communication between

team members for a better safety culture. They indicated the difficulties they faced in

communicating with Arabic-speaking patients when they could not speak the language.

They also talked about the issue of being able to speak up when patient safety was

compromised.

Participants talked about how health care professionals from different teams and

backgrounds work together in surgical teams. The surgical team usually consists of

surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, anaesthesia technicians and sometimes other professionals

such as radiographers. Optimally they work as a team, and everyone performs their duties

as required until the end of the operation; however, conflicts sometimes arise between

professionals for various reasons. The third theme, conflict in theatres, introduced the

types of conflict that had an impact on the workers, the work, and—ultimately—the safety

of patients. It also shed light on the sources of conflict in operating theatres. This theme

consisted of five sub-themes that illustrated the conflicts and explored their impact on

health care workers and their patients.

Participants talked openly about the issues that affected the safety culture in their

workplaces. As mentioned, three main themes were identified from the participants’

transcripts. These themes consisted of 14 interrelated and interconnected sub-themes.

Themes and sub-themes that are interrelated can be used to understand each other.

Interview Findings 139

 Table 6.1: Themes, sub-themes and their illustrations
Theme Sub-theme Illustrations
Culture’s Different There are different cultures and we are from different
influence on backgrounds backgrounds, so we will see things differently and do things a
work little differently (participant 9)
environment Local culture I had like quite a big cultural shock ... Only when I came here did
I know that there is another culture, totally different from all the
other cultures that I know (participant 6)
Local culture This is a male-dominated society. Women don’t have much of a
influencing work say here and most nurses are female and not of this country ...
environment Work is the same as the society (participant 9)
Being a foreigner Very lonely situation. The fact that you come to work, you go
back to your room, just being alone in that room, your friends
circle around you, but there’s no loved ones (participant 4)

Safety Teamwork Between all of us, it goes a very long way for people to
Culture and understand that we are a team, we work together (participant 6)
patient Communicating It’s all for the patient, patient’s safety, you need to speak in
safety within teams English. I don’t know what I will understand when she speaks in
her language (participant 10)
Communicating I’m feeling guilty that I don’t interact with patients that much,
with patients because I don’t speak Arabic very well (participant 18)
Receiving respect Sometimes we (nurses) feel less respected (participant 16)
Speaking up We’re not telling [our comments on policies] to the head ... We
are afraid also ... maybe they will get angry with us ... We’re
trying to avoid that we do something wrong. We’re just following
what they are telling us (participant 20)
Conflict in Conflict affecting I actually was traumatised by it ... I wanted to be swallowed by the
theatres professionals floor and just to vanish from the world ... I was humiliated really
(participant 7)
Conflict affecting (Conflict) affects the patient as well in a way because [when] you
patient safety become so emotional; you don’t know how to handle this
(participant 4)
Sources of I know of a surgeon who is forever belittling others, not only
conflicts nurses, even other surgeons in the theatre. You know, when they
are uptight and they are in a situation with a patient, he takes it out
on everybody around him (participant 6)
Handling effect of Basically for nursing, we were trained to face all kinds of
conflicts difficulty in the profession ... we will manage, we will work ... It’s
part of our life; we accept it and manage it effectively (participant
5)
Solving vs. They (the management) will call the surgeon and they will talk to
resolving each other but we are not getting any feedback from them ... But
still the surgeons were not changing ... Nothing happen ... They
have to investigate what was the problem and they have to solve
the problem correctly (participant 3)

Interview Findings 140

 6.2.1. Culture’s influence on work environment
This theme focuses on participants’ experiences and perceptions of the effect of

culture on their work environment and, ultimately, patient safety. It provides a holistic

understanding of participants’ entire experiences of being part of the multicultural

workforce. It also helps to explain what participants mean by labelling themselves as

foreigners and how participants’ first impressions of Saudi Arabia shaped their subsequent

work experience.

The theme consists of four sub-themes that are related and complement each other

to provide a better understanding of the participants’ perceptions of the influence of culture

on their work. Participants described the multicultural workforce environment in the first

sub-theme, different backgrounds. They pointed out some benefits of working with

colleagues from the same cultural background plus issues when working with others from

different backgrounds. Dealing with team members based on cultural background was one

important issue raised by participants. The second sub-theme was local culture, where

participants talked about the differences between their cultures and the Saudi culture. They

described the effect of these differences on them and the health care services provided.

They also talked about the difficulties they faced in understanding the culture rather than

embracing it. They mentioned different ways that helped them to learn about the Saudi

culture. In the third sub-theme, local culture influencing work environment, participants

talked about how the culture was entrenched in the work environment. They raised some

issues about the Saudi culture that affected their work environment and suggested some

solutions. They noted that Saudi culture was male-dominated, and suggested appointing

male Saudi leaders in the nursing field to ensure a better power balance with other fields.

These sub-themes complement each other as they collectively describe cultural differences

and how nurses learnt about and dealt with the differences, and provided suggestions for

improvement.

Interview Findings 141

 Different backgrounds
The behaviours and actions of people can be misinterpreted or misunderstood by

those from different cultures. People engage in common actions and behaviours without

thinking, and some actions may have different meanings in other cultures. Participants

expressed their feeling of ease and comfort with colleagues from the same culture, when

working in a multicultural work environment. They indicated that they did not have to

worry about being misunderstood, as they were by colleagues from other cultures. They

also raised issues with how management handles cultural differences.

The participants acknowledged differences between cultures and backgrounds.

They talked about how these affected their cooperation with each other. They felt that they

were misunderstood when they did something they were used to doing, as some actions

were wrongly perceived by people from other cultures:

There are different cultures and we are from different backgrounds, so we will see

things differently and do things a little differently ... They [people from other

backgrounds] confuse arrogance with assertiveness, they don’t know the difference.

You stand up for what you believe in and they think you are just being arrogant ...

you are [just] being assertive (participant 9)

As a result of such misconstrued perceptions, participants felt some discomfort

working with people from other backgrounds. They felt more freedom when they worked

with people from their own background as they could act more naturally:

Because we worked together in the previous hospital [in our home country] ...

There is a freedom to tell them or do anything without them misunderstanding you.

(participant 3)

The participants felt that the work environment was divided into groups based on

people’s cultures and backgrounds. They talked about themselves as part of a cultural

Interview Findings 142

group. One nurse indicated that she felt isolated because there were not many people from

her background:

We’re only a few here so I feel isolated ... we are a minority here. (participant 4)

Participants indicated that people were dealt with based on their backgrounds. For

example, one participant described how people dealt with particular cultural groups. She

talked about people from the Philippines, even though she was from another nationality,

being dealt with differently:

Filipino female nurses they won’t talk back. They would rather keep them quiet. We

do understand that ... Filipinos are outnumbered now. (participant 7)

In the previous two examples, the words minority and outnumbered indicate the

presence of a cultural view of health care workers among the workers. This view was

evident not only among them: even management perceived, and deal differently with,

different nationalities. Participants indicated that people from different countries receive

different salaries despite doing the same job:

Nationality wise, we all are working the same, same stress, same position, but

different salary by different country ... It makes you depressed. (participant 10)

That health care workers were dealt with based on their cultural background was

evident in the participants’ words. They indicated that it affected them at different levels.

Local culture
On a broader aspect, participants also talked about the difficulties they faced in

understanding and adapting to the local culture. They talked about their experiences,

feelings and perceptions when they first came to Saudi Arabia, describing their early

experience as “cultural shock,” “a challenge” and perceiving the Saudi culture to be

“different from our culture”. They identified the most significant differences that they

Interview Findings 143

found difficult to understand as gender separation and the issue of privacy, and noted that

they had found Saudi culture to be different from what they had heard before they arrived.

They argued that a culture can only be understood when people are exposed to it.

Almost all participants described their first experience of Saudi Arabia as a shock

and a challenge. One of the nurses described her experience in detail, indicating her

feelings when she arrived:

I had like quite a big cultural shock ... I was, like, taken aback and I couldn’t

understand exactly what’s happening here. Only when I came here did I know that

there is another culture, totally different from all the other cultures that I know ... it

took me a very long time to actually understand. (participant 6)

Another participant pointed out that Saudi culture was a shock and a challenge at

the same time. She had spent eight years in Saudi Arabia at the time of the interview and

concluded, “up to now, it has been a real challenge for me to be in Saudi Arabia”

(participant 4).

Different challenges were described, but they were summarised by one participant

when comparing Saudi culture with her own: “we have difficulties culture wise, language

wise, freedom wise; everything” (participant 5).

Several aspects of the Saudi culture were discussed; the most evident manifestation

of Saudi culture was gender segregation. Customs relating to dress were the first issue

mentioned by participants when they spoke about culture:

The culture was a shock in the sense that I couldn’t understand the female thing in

Saudi. It was a real shock. We had to cover from head to toe ... I had to respect it

by all means, and I am still doing it. (participant 4)

Saudi customs are built around minimal interaction between females and males,

except within one’s immediate family. Thus, females wear special clothing, called the

Interview Findings 144

abaya, over their normal clothes when they leave home and are in public places. The

abaya is a black dress, usually made of very light material that goes from the shoulder to

the ankle. Women cover their hair with a matching scarf called a tarha. Most Saudi

women, but not all, cover their faces with a very light cover called a ghotwa, niqab or

borqa. Although it is the norm and the law for females to cover their hair and body when

in public, covering the face is optional; however, most women prefer to cover their faces.

Social norms also dictate that men refrain from staring at females, leading to a lack of eye

contact between genders. Participants explained that

It is just that like the Saudi women covering and when you see the culture you know

it is other males are not supposed to see them. (participant 9)

I used to see the people’s faces when I talk to them, and I look at them eye to eye, so

here you have to be more conserved ... we have less eye contact. (participant 18)

Here there are some restrictions for us, males to females and females also to males

... If you are a female, you cannot talk to males ... you want to elaborate more, but

you cannot do more because of the restrictions outside [the hospital] ... really, we

just talk to them [during work] and after that, no more. (participant 11)

Different ways of learning about Saudi culture were mentioned. Participants

pointed out that they learnt about local culture in their orientation program. Most

considered the program helpful for learning about different customs and rituals, but some

questioned its benefit. They advocated the need to mingle with local people to learn about

the essence of the culture:

Interview Findings 145

 When we are coming here, there is GSO (General Staff Orientation) and GNO

(General Nursing Orientation): they are giving lectures and classes explaining the

Saudi culture and customs here. (participant 8)

I think you will not learn from that orientation with only teaching for one class. I

think you have to be spending a lot [of time] with patients for you to know the

inner, the real thing about this culture ... Once you get to know the patients, you

will have a different idea of how or what the culture is. (participant 15)

In this sub-theme, participants described their first impressions of the Saudi culture

and the main issues that they found hard to understand in the Saudi culture. Despite efforts

that were implemented to help them in understanding the local culture, participants

questioned their effectiveness. They argued that they only truly learnt about the culture

when they were exposed to it first-hand.

Local culture influencing work environment

Cultural differences and expectations create difficulties for non-Saudi

professionals. This sub-theme presents the effect of these differences on the work

environment, health care workers and patient safety. Participants pointed out that all levels

of the work environment were influenced by the culture, commenting on how male status

in the culture influenced interactions among team members. They pointed out how it

contributed to the lack of proper problem solving among team members:

This is a male-dominated society. Women don’t have much of a say here and most

nurses are female and not of this country. We do show them respect ... Work is the

same as the society. The doctor, a male, will always be at the top, so we will have

to be under him and give him respect. I think outside and inside the hospital, it is

still male dominated. (participant 9)

Interview Findings 146

 It’s the culture; you can’t just talk back to male people in this country ... It’s the

cultural thing I think ... It seems engrained in the culture of the Saudi people.

(participant 7)

Participants explicitly expressed concern that male dominance in the work

environment was a safety threat, given that the majority of nurses were females. They were

worried about the consequences on safety culture of their lack of empowerment.

Participants stressed the importance of having male nursing leaders in allowing them to

speak up, which ultimately would enhance the safety culture. One participant presented her

opinion about the importance of male leaders in nursing:

I think being male and being Saudi at the same time is important for us, because he

can bridge the gap between his nurses and the surgeons if a problem arises ...

Unlike if you have a female as a director; she can’t talk to these surgeons in a more

direct way. (participant 7)

One of the participants talked about her experience with a new male Saudi nurse

leader. She indicated that he helped nurses in voicing their concerns. She reflected on her

experience with female and male nursing leaders in Saudi Arabia:

We have a stand, and a leg to stand on. We have our director at the premises ... We

have been having a woman as director, and now that we have [Mr X], he’s a Saudi,

number one, and he’s a man ... [Being a Saudi and a man] gives much more power.

It does. Sometimes you go and tell [Mr. X], I have [issues with] A, B, C and D; and

then the person is called. Now they’ll be talking whether in English or Arabic. But

they’ll come to a consensus and it will be okay in no time. It’s solved. (participant

6)

Interview Findings 147

 The influence of the Saudi culture was also extended to the social interactions

among employees. They indicated that, during their breaks, socialisation was limited to

colleagues of the same gender. As one participant explained:

We have a female lounge and male lounge here. So a female can rest and have their

food in the female lounge and a male is separated from the female lounge

(participant 5)

In this sub-theme, participants talked about the influences of the Saudi culture on

their work environment and the safety culture. They expressed their need for male Saudi

nursing leaders to maintain a power balance with other, usually male-dominated,

departments. Participants felt more secure and more respected when they had such leaders.

Being a foreigner
The influence of the culture on the work environment had led the participants to

feel like foreigners. In this sub-theme, they continued to describe their feeling as

foreigners, which they associated with stress, loneliness and feelings of helplessness. Some

highlighted the effect of being a foreigner on their work. They pointed out some strategies

they used to overcome such feelings. Being a foreigner could have a direct effect on the

unity of the team; they tended not to feel like part of the team when they classified

themselves as foreigners.

Participants experienced loneliness as they were away from family and friends.

They felt more stressed when they could not live among families and friends. They gave

different examples of how they relieve stress. Some tended to work more; they found free

time to be troubling as they did not have many social activities:

Very lonely situation. The fact that you come to work, you go back to your room,

just being alone in that room, your friends circle around you, but there’s no loved

ones. (participant 4)

Interview Findings 148

 Sometimes working relieves stress for me. It’s better during the week ... if you’re

sitting there the whole weekend and you don’t know what to do, don’t know where

to go, it’s so stressful ... It’s just stressful for you to be here. Just to be here.

(participant 6)

They indicated that living as foreigners was an adjustment that they had to make

Because you came here, you will work here, you will be adjusting yourself. You

must be adjusted, because you are a foreigner here. (participant 1)

They identified different methods for adjusting to being a foreigner. They set

targets and worked to achieve them. One of the most common targets was working to

improve their financial status, which helped them to overcome hurdles they encountered

when away from their families. However, setting a goal to overcome such issues made

some participants feel more helpless:

We manage ... because we came here, we have to work. To earn money, we have to

work; we have to focus on that goal. (participant 15)

What can they do? We’re in another country. They all came here to work for the

money. So they have to do their job and go home ... we have to do whatever

requested. We cannot refuse. (participant 10)

Despite some benefits of working with colleagues from the same culture,

participants expressed their concerns about being dealt with based on their cultural

background. These concerns were extended to include unexpected differences between

their cultures and the local culture. They explained how the local culture influenced their

work environment and dealings with other colleagues. Cultural complexities made it

Interview Findings 149

difficult for participants to integrate with the local culture. Lack of belonging led to

helplessness and frustration.

6.2.2. Safety culture and patient safety

This theme presents the issues related to teams in the operating theatres. It is

divided into five sub-themes. In the first sub-theme the nurses describe the characteristics

of their teamwork. In the second they talk about issues related to communication between

team members. The third sub-theme presents the communication difficulties they face with

their patients. When discussing Saudi culture, participants raised issues about the local

language (Arabic). Participants highlighted the difficulties they faced in communicating

with their patients. Suggestions included the provision of Arabic classes and hiring

translators. They argued that bilingual people would help bridge the gap between health

care workers and their patients.

In the fourth sub-theme, the nurses talk about the image of nursing and how they

are perceived by other team members. Their concerns about their ability to advocate for

their patients is presented in the fifth sub-theme. These sub-themes collectively provide a

rich description of the issues around team structure and teamwork.

Lack of good teamwork influences patient safety. A good description of the team

structure was given by one nurse when she provided an overview:

We have the DON, the director of nursing in operating rooms, who’s on the

premises. Then we have the head nurse. Then we have charge nurses ... Then we

have nurses allocated to all the theatres. So our communication goes with a

hierarchy like that. If we have a problem at ground root level, we tell it to the

charge nurse, who will communicate it to the office up until it reaches the DON; if

we cannot solve it, but if we can, there’s no problem ... And we have anaesthetists

and surgeons, each one of them has got their little committee. So if we have

Interview Findings 150

 communicated and we have spoken about things in our meetings, there is another

meeting where there will be only the heads of the departments who will sit and talk.

And that is how our communication will go. (participant 6)

Teamwork
The participants described some of the positive effects of good teamwork on them

and their work, and its effect on productivity and patient safety. The role played by

supervisors and the surgeons in the team was emphasised. They pointed out some issues

with teamwork that were seen as important.

According to the participants, if their surgeon was cooperative the quality of the

teamwork improved. The surgeon’s cooperative nature boosted their confidence level.

Difficult situations are expected in operating theatres. Surgery requires cutting and

dissecting, and bleeding is expected at any time of the operation. Bleeding can be

considered one of the difficult situations, especially if the source cannot easily be located

or accessed. One participant narrated a difficult situation and how the surgeon’s behaviour

helped to overcome it safely and confidently.

I like a friendly attitude from the surgeon side, so that I can anticipate and

participate more confidently ... I scrubbed for pancreatic tumour resection; it was a

quite large tumour. While dissecting the tumour, we had unexpected bleeding ... It

depends on the surgeon’s attitude and ability. With my luck, our surgeon was very

excellent, no shouting, no panicking and he managed very well, even with that

critical situation. So I felt at the end of the day, I can do whatever critical situation

with that person. I can do and I can manage. (participant 5)

In addition, working on a well-organised team relieves fatigue. Good teamwork is

also linked to better safety for patients:

Interview Findings 151

 If a good team we will be happy to work for even the 10 cases; we will not feel

tired. (participant 3)

If there is good teamwork, you don’t have to be worrying about other

responsibilities because you know that the other people can do their things, so you

have to be only working wisely on your own ... You will finish your job well and on

time. The patient will go home safely.” (participant 15)

As indicated in the last illustration, for any task to be achieved, team members have

to work collectively—that is, everyone has certain responsibilities to take care of. The

participant continued by commenting on the negative effects on team members when their

colleagues failed to fulfil their duties:

Some cannot do the task well, so you have to cover up for them and you end up

doing your job and their job ... It’s a difficult thing ... It hurts us ... It would be like

additional burden for you. (participant 15)

Conflicts happen not only when team members fail to do what is required of them;

they also arise when other members do something that is not their responsibility. This mix

of responsibilities exerts pressure on other team members and creates conflict. In operating

theatres, nurses are responsible for calling the next patient on the list and preparing the

theatre for surgery. They know how long it takes them to prepare and how long it takes the

patient to reach the theatre: the nurses manage these processes effectively. When other

members of the team interfere with their work, it pushes them to take shortcuts in their

work. One of the participants illustrated this point:

Interview Findings 152

 The holding area nurses inform us that our patient is here ... We did not call for the

patient, we are not yet ready. We still need to prepare ... Then they inform us the

surgeon was the one who called them to bring down the patient. (participant 1)

Most participants were concerned that the meaning of teamwork had been lost.

They expressed their need for the reimplementation of the teamwork concept. One of the

participants summarised these comments:

Between all of us, it goes a very long way for people to understand that we are a

team, we work together. (participant 6)

Participants pointed out that cooperation among team members needs to be

improved. One of the participants explained that team members needed to be more

forgiving of each other:

The only thing is that the attitude of everybody. They should change, they should

accept from each other ... They should not feel bad. (participant 16)

Participants discussed their views of the importance of good teamwork in their

work. They provided examples of difficult situations that were overcome safely owing to

good teamwork between the team members. They also provided examples of how less than

optimal teamwork affects them and their patients.

Communicating within teams

In a discussion of communication between team members in operating theatres,

participants expressed concern about their communication with each other within the

surgical team, referencing the lack of communication by commenting on their different

languages. They indicated that people from the same background spoke their language

despite other members of the team not understanding them, which they felt had a negative

impact on them and on patient safety. They felt that language difference was a barrier in

Interview Findings 153

training new staff. They recognised that English was the official language at the hospital,

but indicated the need to enforce it.

It was recognised that communication among health care workers needed to be

improved. Participants emphasised the importance of communication among the team

members:

Actually in regard to improvement, number one is communication between

colleagues. Communication here is very important. (participant 19)

The participants discussed issues related to communication among nurses. They

indicated that they speak English, the formal language of the hospital, as a second

language. Difficulties arise when almost all team members speak English as a second

language. Misunderstanding each other was one of the difficulties mentioned by the

participants:

Even among us the nurses, even we speak English, it is different. It is different

communication between us as we were not raised as English people. Somebody is

originally a Filipino and somebody is originally Indian. He is not an English

person ... Sometimes we don’t get to understand each other and he probably say

something, which has different meaning for me, but he doesn’t mean it ... It’s not

only between Arabs and us, also among us. (participant 15)

Difficulties in speaking and comprehending English are one reason that team

members tend to speak their own language. They find it more convenient and easier to

express their ideas. However, they work as part of a team that includes people who cannot

understand their language, and this affects their teamwork and communication flow:

The most important barrier in this whole thing is language, still. Because, in a

team, you find that you are three or four nationalities; team of nurses ... the two

Interview Findings 154

 will be talking in their own language in the presence of the patients. And I don’t

know what they say. (participant 6)

Communication problems explained the effect on the other members of the team as

well as on patient safety. Communication can break down when individuals speak in a

language not understood by every member of the team:

It’s the policy of the hospital to speak English in the hospital ... It has to be

enforced ... you can hear that inside the theatre, three languages, four languages ...

you feel left out. It irritates you. Really it’s very irritating and sometimes you just

want to go out of the room ... You try to focus and then you hear this in the

background ... It does affect you. (participant 7)

It’s all for the patient, patient’s safety, you need to speak in English. I don’t know

what I will understand when she speaks in her language. (participant 10)

In addition, they indicated that new staff were not always able to speak English

fluently, which affected their willingness to train new staff. Nor could they communicate

well with new Saudi staff owing to the language barrier:

Some of the new Saudi staff, they don’t know how to speak English ... if you want to

teach them, you cannot teach well because of this language barrier. (participant

20)

Participants indicated there were inherent difficulties in communicating with each

other on the nursing team, and identified aspects of patient safety that were affected by the

communication barrier. The low level of communication was responsible for less

interaction and unity within the nursing teams. They also described communication

Interview Findings 155

between the staff and their patients as another challenge. It was indicated that being from

different backgrounds has a similar effect on their teams.

Communicating with patients

This sub-theme focuses on issues involving communication with Saudi patients. It

complements the previous sub-themes in that it addresses communication difficulty, but it

stands alone as a sub-theme because of the importance of communication with patients as

partners in health care, and the consequences of communication difficulty on patient

safety. This sub-theme presents the participants’ views on language difference between

staff and patients as a problem. They identify the Arabic language, which is different from

theirs, as a problem for them and for the health care services that they provide.

The language barrier was an issue from the moment participants arrived in Saudi

Arabia. They expressed their perceptions of the importance of speaking Arabic to provide

good health care to Saudi patients and identified language difference as a problem that has

implications for patient safety and the provision of proper and safe health care:

I was not aware that in Saudi, there will be someone who doesn’t know English ...

So when I came here, I found people who could not understand a yes. And they

know something else instead of a yes ... That’s a very big gap that we have. If you

cannot talk, communicate, with your patient, and you do not know what she is

saying to you and she does not understand what you are saying to her, that’s a very

big gap (participant 6)

If you want to really establish a good rapport with your patient you have to speak

fluent Arabic. (participant 5)

Not being able to speak Arabic affected not only patients and the delivery of health

care services, but also the participants themselves as they felt guilty and helpless when not

able to speak with patients:

Interview Findings 156

 I’m feeling guilty that I don’t interact with patients that much, because I don’t

speak Arabic very well. (participant 18)

Maybe if I can speak Arabic more, my patient care will be more improved. Because

sometimes the patient is asking but really I don’t know. Even though I want to

answer ... but really, it is hard for me because I don’t speak Arabic. (participant

19)

Participants also indicated the importance of properly understanding their patients.

They stated that a lack of communication affects the quality of their work; it also affects

the safety of their patients. They gave different examples of situations in which patients

could be harmed due to the language barrier.

I think it’s also important for the patient safety [that] they can tell you everything ...

If you ask the patient ‘do you have any dentures?’, if there’s none, they’ll say no,

no, but they cannot explain to you that they have a fixed bridge, which is also

important. (participant 8)

They emphasised the importance of language in improving patient safety. One

participant argued that, although errors and safety issues arise in health care settings where

patients and health care workers speak the same language, health care settings that include

language barriers are more susceptible to errors. Such a comparison helped put their

concerns into perspective, showing the potential magnitude of safety issues in operating

theatres in Saudi Arabia:

In other countries, problems arise even when they speak the same language. How

much more if you have a multicultural setting, you take care of Arabic-speaking

people and the nurses are from another nationality, so it would be great to have

Interview Findings 157

 this [Arabic classes] open for them to improve on their speaking skills. (participant

7)

Another participant provided an example of how other countries deal with health

care workers speaking different languages. She indicated that health care workers are

required to take English language tests when they intend to work in English-speaking

countries such as the USA and Australia to ensure that they are fluent in the national

language of the country. The participant argued that health care workers working in Saudi

Arabia should also be fluent in the national language, Arabic, or at least have some basic

skills:

When you go to America, you are taking exams like IELTS [International English

Language Testing System]. So you have to learn their language before you work. I

think it is also a must for us here. [It is] for patients also to understand you because

it is not their fault also being a patient in their place. They are Arabs, so they have

also that right for that matter. (participant 15)

Participants indicated that they needed to learn Arabic. They suggested that the best

way was for the hospital to provide Arabic classes, and indicated a need and willingness to

attend them. However, such classes have not been offered to staff in operating theatres.

If I will have that power to improve patient safety, [it will be] Arabic classes for

better nurse–patient interactions. (participant 18)

Translators could help solve the language barrier between the health care workers

and their patients. According to participants, translators can help communicate clearly with

patients, enabling them to understand their patients more holistically. However, translators

are a short-term solution for this problem:

Interview Findings 158

 If we can appoint Arabic speakers ... to be part of us, we can solve easily this

problem because they can get information from the patient, they can translate in

English to us. Educated people should work as interpreters, so they can solve the

problem. (participant 5)

In this sub-theme, participants identified the language difference as a barrier

between them and their patients. They indicated that it affected their quality of care and the

safety of their patients. They agreed about the need for Arabic classes for the non-Arabic

speaking health care workers; they also indicated their need for bilingual professionals to

help in translating between them and their patients.

Receiving respect
In the previous sub-themes participants talked about teamwork and communication.

In this sub-theme they pointed out their concern about the lack of respect, appreciation and

cooperation that they experienced from other professionals. Some participants reflected on

how others view their status as professionals, and their importance as part of the team.

Nurses in operating theatres are responsible for all stages of the surgical procedure.

They are responsible for admitting patients into the operating theatre, preparing the

instruments and assisting the surgeon throughout the procedure. Filling out the paperwork,

discharging the patient, cleaning the theatre and preparing for the next patient all fall under

nurses’ responsibilities. When the nurses perform these duties, they expect recognition and

appreciation.

Participants were frustrated about not being recognised as professionals. They were

also concerned about not receiving appreciation for the job they do:

Most people still do not see nurses as professionals and then I would assume that

they are still in the dark ages. Well, nursing is a profession and then they tend to

Interview Findings 159

 neglect us a bit. Okay, not a bit, a lot. We feel very unappreciated, is the term,

really unappreciated and not important. (participant 9)

Sometimes we (nurses) feel less respected. (participant 16)

They raised concern that the surgeons do not cooperate with them. Some felt that

the lack of cooperation from surgeons was because surgeons perceive nurses to be

subordinates:

The lack of cooperation ... [surgeons] don’t want to cooperate with nurses.

(participant 19)

You know with these surgeons I think it’s universal. They really think that they are

above the nurses. But we want, as nurses, to be treated equal ... They don’t think of

us as equals. (participant 7)

Their concerns were not related exclusively to surgeons; they had similar concerns

about their supervisors. One of the nurses talked about the lack of encouragement for

nurses from their supervisors and how it affected their work and improvement:

Even from the superiors also if we do something good, we have to be appreciated

not only for scolding, not only for depressing and keeping you down. (participant 3)

This lack of appreciation was further explained by another participant who

expressed her feelings about the lack of appreciation and support for nurses:

No one cares about the nurses ... People should support us ... [We need]

appreciation. (participant 10)

The participants had concerns about how nurses were perceived and treated. They

indicated their need for appreciation and recognition.

Interview Findings 160

 Speaking up
The previous sub-theme discussed the lack of respect for the nurses in operating

theatres and this sub-theme follows by pointing out the difficulties participants face in

speaking up about safety issues. They discussed the effect of their immediate leaders on

them and on patient safety. As they provided examples of good leadership and its effect on

their work, they also discussed some concerns about their ability to speak up.

Participants recognised the importance of good leadership, and pointed out the

impact of their leaders on their work. One talked about the importance of the supervisors’

role in the team:

If the in-charge is good, it’s really nice. [It feels like] they’re taking half of the

burden, so we can relax. But if the one who is leading doesn’t know the job, it’s a

disaster. (participant 10)

As the participants recognised and appreciated good leadership, they also voiced

concerns about poor leadership. They indicated that poor leadership affected patient safety.

Their concerns focused on the open communication between themselves and their

superiors:

Supervisors should be more cooperative with the staff to improve patient safety ... It

will make a big difference ... If I’m free to my head nurse or my charge nurse, why

should I be scared to tell if something goes wrong in the room! (participant 3)

Participants used several strong words when they explained that they did not feel

comfortable in commenting on the policies and procedures. They talked about feeling

“ashamed” and “afraid” and the fear of “do[ing]something wrong.” One participant

summarised it as being asked to “do as [they are] told”:

We’re not telling [our comments on policies] to the head. We just only keep on

talking with the other sisters ... Because we are ashamed, you know, and then we

Interview Findings 161

 are afraid also ... maybe they will get angry with us ... We’re trying to avoid that we

do something wrong. We’re just following what they are telling us. (participant 20)

Teamwork, communication between team members, communication between

health care professionals and their patients, respect between team members and speaking

up were the main issues discussed by participants about safety culture. They pointed out

how these issues directly affect patient safety. In addition, they discussed how those

elements of safety culture affect them and their patients.

6.2.3. Conflict in theatres

This theme reports participants’ descriptions of conflicts in the operating theatres

and their related issues. Five related sub-themes are included. The first, conflicts affecting

professionals, talks about the examples of conflicts and their effect on health care workers.

The participants shared their experiences of conflict and openly described their feelings.

They describe the perceived effect, supported by examples that they had experienced, of

these conflicts and their feelings about the safety of their patients in the second sub-theme,

conflicts affecting patients. The third theme, sources of conflicts, identifies sources of

conflicts extracted from participants’ stories. In addition, participants describe their ways

of handling and managing the effect of conflict in the fourth sub-theme, handling effect of

conflicts. Their personal ways of dealing with conflict can be understood as strategies to

cope with the effect of conflict, especially given the lack of appropriate solutions, as

described in the fifth sub-theme, solving versus resolving.

Conflicts affecting professional

In this sub-theme, nurses provided examples of conflicts in theatres and talked

about their effect on them. They expressed their feelings when they were caught in such

situations. Their words showed how significantly they were traumatised by those actions.

One participant indicated that it was an “abuse situation”:

Interview Findings 162

 He threw the instrument at me! It really got out of hand ... [I felt] very, very hurt,

very, very sore inside ... I was in tears because it was very emotional. Because

everyone was at me and looking ... It’s really not a nice feeling. I’m talking from

the bottom of my heart ... Very, very stressful. I can’t explain to you. At one stage, I

wanted to leave. But financially, I couldn’t leave ... It’s not a nice thing to talk

about. It’s like an abuse situation ... I was broken inside. (participant 4)

The abuse was not only emotional. Others described physically and emotionally

abusive situations:

[Examples of abusive situation were] throwing instruments at you ... or throwing

solutions on you, saying things that are hurtful, deliberately trying to praise one

nurse and look at you and say that you are lazy or something like that in front of a

whole lot of people. (participant 9)

Despite physical abuse which included having instruments and solutions thrown at

them, the nurses talked more about emotional pain. Almost all their descriptions were

about their feelings and emotions. The following examples highlight the nurses’

descriptions of how they felt after experiencing such situations:

I actually was traumatised by it ... I wanted to be swallowed by the floor and just to

vanish from the world ... I was humiliated really. (participant 7)

It makes you feel low and incompetent ... You feel flustered ... You will feel really

down and out ... By the end of the day we are still humans, we are still girls with

feelings. (participant 9)

The sister is not a robot, they have feelings also ... It’s painful. (participant 20)

These emotions affected the nurses at work and outside work. Some used

medications to help them cope with these emotions:

Interview Findings 163

 At the end of the day, we will always be depending on the medication. Especially

we’re abroad; we are away from our family. (participant 5)

Participants’ responses suggested that these situations and the resulting emotions

affected them more than they were aware of. The emotions seem to have been buried, as if

participants were trying to forget that they existed:

It brings all the memories and, actually, I don’t want to put myself exactly into the

picture because I had a situation like that, and I told myself, I’m not going there

again, ever. (participant 6)

However, these situations, feelings and emotions tended to resurface. One

explanation for this was that nurses indicated that their duty was to “adjust”:

We feel bad, but still we adjust. (participant 17)

Conflicts affecting patient safety

As participants described their emotional and physical feelings, they also voiced

their concerns about the safety of their patients. In the previous sub-theme participants

gave some examples of conflict and described how they felt. They also recognised, in this

sub-theme, that these conflicts were negatively affecting patient safety. They indicated that

they lost concentration, which could result in catastrophic results. One participant pointed

out that emotions play a great role in this risk:

[Conflict] affects the patient as well in a way because [when] you become so

emotional, you don’t know how to handle this. (participant 4)

A detailed example of how conflict can lead to risks to patients’ lives was given by

another participant. She described how emotions affect concentration and ultimately affect

the safety of the patient:

Interview Findings 164

 You can actually do the biggest mistake of your life. He’s (the surgeon) angry,

you’re angry, and the patient bleeds and he’s asking you for a clamp. You give him

a scissor. And he can cut the major artery when he’s trying to clamp. He’s cutting

because you gave him a scissor instead of a clamp. Because you’re both angry. You

know, anger can blind you. You think you’re looking, but you’re not seeing

anything. (participant 6)

Handing the wrong instrument to the surgeon was one example of the effect of

conflict. Instrument counting, as participants pointed out, is one of the most important

safety defence strategies in operating theatres. It guards against leaving instruments inside

patients. Participants indicated that conflict affects their concentration when involved in

instrument counting, which could lead to safety breaches. One respondent explained that

You’re already stressed and you might do some of the counting wrong, because you

cannot see properly ... [It is] harmful to the patient ... Sometimes you couldn’t find

the thing and maybe it’s just in front of you. (participant 10)

Sources of conflicts
As participants explicitly shared their feelings and concerns, they also discussed the

effect that conflict had on other health care professionals and their patients. Different

strategies employed by the nurses to cope with such stressors were outlined and discussed.

In this sub-theme, the sources of conflicts in theatres were discussed. Most conflicts were

found to centre on appropriate preparation and the availability of instruments and

equipment. Participants indicated that some team members were unable to handle stressful

situations and, consequently, started conflicts with others. Other conflicts were engrained

in some workers’ personalities and attitudes.

Interview Findings 165

 Every operation requires the preparation of all of the instruments expected to be

used during the surgery. It is the nurses’ responsibility to prepare all needed instruments

beforehand. They discuss any amendments, such as the unavailability of a certain

instrument, with the surgeons before the start of the operation. The participants identified

incomplete preparation and unavailability of instruments as sources of conflict in operating

theatres.

The surgery could be at a stage where that instrument is needed immediately, such

as a clamp for a bleeding artery. Bringing another one from the store takes time, which

may not be available. One participant explained that improper preparation for surgery was

a source of conflict with surgeons:

Sometimes incomplete preparation, you know sometimes we will forget. If we forget

something, we need to go back to the store and that takes five minutes of delay.

That might extend surgery time and get the surgeon angry. (participant 5)

If the instrument is available but forgotten by the nurse, this is an issue. The other

issue is if the instrument is not available at all. Sometimes, the supply of a certain

instrument might not be available for a certain period of time. The supply issue usually

stems from purchasing department issues, so frontline personnel can do nothing about it.

However, the surgeon expects the availability of these instruments and operates

accordingly. Conflict can arise when he/she discovers the unavailability of such

instruments.

Sometimes we don’t have any supply, so we cannot give if requested. That is why

the surgeon is shouting. (participant 14)

Participants also indicated that, even if the nurses were completely prepared, they

were still blamed if the instruments did not work during some stage of the operation.

Interview Findings 166

Nurses are responsible for making sure that instruments and equipment are available and in

working condition. However, one participant explained that

He’ll be operating something, and if he thinks it does not work he would throw it.

Every instrument and every gadget and every electrical appliance, there’s a time

that they give up. (participant 6)

Participants identified another source of conflict as the lack of ability to handle

stress. Participants talked about situations where some of the surgeons panic when they get

into difficult situations during surgery. One participant acknowledged that surgeons create

conflicts because of the stress they are under, usually related to the surgery. She indicated

that some surgeons cannot handle stress well and take it out on everybody:

I know of a surgeon who is forever belittling others, not only nurses, even other

surgeons in the theatre. You know, when they are uptight and they are in a situation

with a patient, he takes it out on everybody around him. (participant 6)

Another participant pointed out that some surgeons start the conflicts because they

panic and do not know what to do:

Sometimes he is not sure, he is not sure what he will do that’s why, maybe that is

his way to get angry in replacement of his thinking what next he will do on this

operation ... Sometimes there is a surgeon who panics. (participant 12)

Participants also indicated that some conflicts were started for no particular reason,

as they were just part of some workers’ personalities and attitudes. They explained that

some surgeons were moody and would start conflicts without any particular reason:

It’s according to their mood. Sometimes they will say okay very good, today you’re

okay. Otherwise, sometimes without any reason, they will throw the instruments

and everything like that; it’s according to their mood. (participant 3)

Interview Findings 167

 Handling effects of conflicts
The availability of instruments and team members’ behaviours were among the

discussed sources of conflicts. Following from this and the other sub-themes, this sub-

section explores how participants manage the effects of conflict.

Despite admitting to the negative effect of conflict on them and their patients, the

nurses talked about the strategies they or other health care professionals use to handle

stressors, emotions, and difficult situations. “Shoulders of steel” was one of the

characteristics mentioned that helped them to manage and isolate the effect of conflict

from affecting them and ultimately the safety of patients:

As a scrub sister you have to have shoulders of steel, so you have to handle

everything ... I think we set ourselves up for this ... I think we are just used to it, so

we are able to handle everything under pressure; anything that comes through the

door. (participant 9)

Other participants indicated that the characteristics that gave them the ability to

handle stressors grew from their nursing education and training to the point where they

became part of their lives:

Basically for nursing, we were trained to face all kinds of difficulty in the

profession ... we will manage, we will work ... It’s part of our life; we accept it and

manage it effectively. (participant 5)

Another participant explained how she managed to deal with conflict by

partitioning her emotional life from her work life:

We will keep it here (pointing at heart) but our work will not be affected ... we can

accept that is our work. You will accept because he is your surgeon. So, accept and

you’ll try not to be affected. (participant 20)

Interview Findings 168

 This emotion-isolating mechanism was elaborated upon by another participant who

indicated that the effect of conflict could be counted in seconds:

He (the surgeon) was shouting a lot of things, but anyhow those things don’t affect

me emotionally ... It does affect my ability to concentrate, but maybe for just a

second or two. (participant 18)

Participants had previously indicated that they believed difficulties were part of a

nurse’s routine. This belief extended to the point where they thought that the only options

they had were to accept that nursing in operating theatres is a stressful job with difficulties

or to leave the profession and the country for good. Despite admitting the effect of stress

on any human being, the following participant indicated that nurses should not have an

option. She noted some of the negative effects of stress and then indicated that nurses who

cannot handle these effects should leave the profession:

Physically, you will have some headache; you don’t sleep well. You feel like

depressed; like you don’t feel like going to work because of that stress. It’s very

normal. If nurses cannot really handle the stress, they are going for exit.

(participant 15)

Participants pointed out that the management system enforced these options of

accepting or leaving. They indicated that they had to manage or their employment would

be terminated:

Because what we know, we can lose our job. Tomorrow we’ll be on the flight.

(participant 4)

The participants shared different ways that they used to overcome the difficulties

and emotions encountered. They seemed to have lost faith in management’s ability to solve

these problems.

Interview Findings 169

 Solving versus resolving
This sub-theme discusses the nurses’ expressions of concern with their current

conflict resolution strategies. They indicated that conflicts were only solved momentarily

although they happened repeatedly. They voiced a need to permanently resolving conflicts

instead of solving them only temporarily:

We have to solve this problem, you know because as a team, we should have a good

relationship with each other ... Sometimes they confront the surgeons after [the

incident] ... Some seniors also go and talk to them, but they (surgeons) come again

the same ... They never change, they are behaving the same (participant 11)

Another participant expressed her frustration with the conflict-resolution practice.

She blamed management for not being able to stop conflict from recurring, and claimed

that management did not take the issue seriously. She felt that management was unaware

of the implications of conflicts on health care workers:

The management took it (the incident) over and they spoke to him (the surgeon), but

nothing happened. You know, sometimes, people have to realise that it’s not a joke.

It’s a serious issue. It’s a serious issue that’s affecting people’s lives and it affects

you so much. (participant 6)

The management’s lack of proper conflict resolution was one part of the problem.

Participants also expressed frustration that management did not give them feedback about

any steps taken to resolve a conflict. They felt neglected; as one participant indicated,

They (the management) will call the surgeon and they will talk to each other but we

are not getting any feedback from them ... But still the surgeons were not changing

... Nothing happen ... They have to investigate what was the problem and they have

to solve the problem correctly. (participant 3)

The participant had lost hope in finding solutions for these conflicts.

Interview Findings 170

 The nurses also indicated acceptance of these conflicts as normal behaviour from

some surgeons. One of the participants indicated her acceptance by stating that

Some of them have been reported and some of them refuse to change their attitude

... I think there is always one rotten egg in a bunch ... it is a vicious cycle ... There

is nothing else we can do with those kinds of people that are deliberately trying to

make your life hell. (participant 9)

Other participants developed different methods for solving conflicts, highlighting

the extent of desperation among them. One of the nurses said that she prayed for the team

every day, which led to better results:

I pray for the team really. That is my habit before coming here to do an operation, I

am praying for the patient and for the team, the results are nice. (participant 12)

6.3. Summary
Conflict was present in participants’ words when talking about patient safety and

describing the effect of conflict on them and their patients. Ineffective teamwork,

incomplete preparation and the lack of ability to handle stress were identified as the main

sources of conflict in operating theatres; however, deeper sources were also identified.

Participants recognised that both conflict and safety culture were affected by deep-

rooted cultural mores. One clear connection between conflict and culture was the male

domination of the work environment, an inherent part of Saudi culture. Another was that

cultural background determined how nurses were dealt with, a form of discrimination that

weakened the cohesiveness of a team.

Culture, in its anthropological form, influenced the Saudi work environment in a

way that professionals from other cultures found difficult to understand or adapt to,

especially without sufficient cultural introduction. This influence was reflected in

Interview Findings 171

weaknesses in the safety culture and manifested in conflict between team members. Such

conflicts affected health care, professionals’ lives, and their quality of care.

Interview Findings 172

Chapter 7: Discussion
This discussion is guided by the research questions and aims, and integrates the

results of the mixed methods used in this study. Culture in its anthropological form, which

has emerged during this study as a significant factor in patient safety, is discussed first

despite being an answer to the last research question. Furthermore, the discussion examines

the relevance of an international safety assessment tool, the SAQ, to the Saudi Arabian

context, and considers the safety climate in Saudi Arabian operating theatres in relation to

international data and benchmarking.

As first described in section 1.3, this study was guided by four main questions and

their sub-questions:

1- What is the current safety climate in the operating theatres in the MOH’s hospitals

in Riyadh?

a. What are the main characteristics of the perioperative teams and do they

differ between hospitals?

b. What characteristics of individuals are related to perceptions of safety

culture?

c. How valid and reliable is a Western-based instrument in describing the

Saudi Arabian context?

2- How do healthcare professionals rate the quality of communication with members

of other surgical disciplines?

3- What, if any, areas of patient safety can be improved in the operating theatres?

4- What aspects of Saudi local culture could have an influence on patient safety?

Discussion 173
7.1. Culture and safety culture
In the belief that patients are an essential part of the medical team (Oates, Weston,

& Jordan, 2000; Reynolds, 2009), this study has answered the fourth research question,

what aspects of Saudi local culture could have an influence on patient safety? This

question allows an exploration of cultural influences on patient safety, given the

differences between patients in Saudi Arabia and the predominantly expatriate medical

team members (Al-Shahri, 2002; MOH, 2012). It was found that the differences in the

cultural backgrounds of both patients and health care professionals were evident and had a

negative influence on patient safety; to alter this will first require a thorough understanding

of the ramifications of cultural differences in a health care context. A discussion of the

influence of different health care professionals’ cultural backgrounds on patient safety is

presented after first discussing the influence of differences between health care

professionals’ and Saudi Arabian patients’ cultural backgrounds.

7.1.1. Patients’ cultural background and patient safety

Saudi Arabian patients are a cultural case presenting obvious differences from other

cultures (Long, 2005). These differences are apparent in expatriate participants’

descriptions of their first experience of the Saudi Arabian culture as “cultural shock”,

“challenge” and “different than our cultures”. Their responses to open-ended questions as

well as the questions in the interviews highlight three dominant cultural aspects that are

believed to influence patient safety in operating theatres: gender segregation and a desire

for privacy; language differences between health care professionals and Saudi Arabian

patients; and low health literacy.

Respondents struggled to manage cultural issues that involved gender segregation.

As interaction between unrelated adults from opposite genders is not accepted in Saudi

Arabian culture (Aldossary et al., 2008; AlMunajjed, 1997; Mackey, 2002), difficulties

Discussion 174
arise when health care professionals perform physical assessments on patients of the

opposite gender (Sullivan, 1993).

Different studies have found that (generally) Muslim and (specifically) Arabic

females highly prefer female physicians (McLean et al., 2012; Nigenda et al., 2003; Rizk,

El‐Zubeir, Al‐Dhaheri, Al‐Mansouri, & Al‐Jenaibi, 2005). Despite similar preferences

reported in Western countries, especially in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology (Aboul-

Enein & Aboul-Enein, 2009; Adams, 2002), the majority of Arabic females insist on

having female health care professionals for all medical procedures (Govender & Penn-

Kekana, 2008; McLean et al., 2012). Social and physical contact between genders in

highly gendered societies such as Saudi Arabia is restricted by cultural and religious norms

(Rizk et al., 2005). Such restrictions affect the optimal provision of health care: for

example, Saudi Arabian females have reported difficulty in asking questions and obtaining

information from male physicians (Nigenda et al., 2003).

Study participants expressed their struggle to understand the level of privacy sought

by Saudi Arabian patients. Difficulties in understanding and meeting some patients’

requests, such as the demand for a single-gendered theatre in which all the treating team

members are of the patient’s gender, and women wishing to be covered head-to-toe all the

time, were expressed. Some participants struggled to understand these cultural aspects of

patients even after having been in Saudi Arabian for an extended period of time, which

highlights the persistence of these issues and the lack of appropriate solutions to date.

Difficulties in understanding the cultural traits of Saudi Arabian patients were worsened by

the inability of many medical staff to speak the patients’ language.

This linguistic inadequacy between non-Arabic-speaking health care professionals

and patients was raised as another hurdle to the provision of optimal and safe health care.

Language discordance occurs when health care professionals and their patients lack

proficiency in the same language (John‐Baptiste et al., 2004; Sears, Khan, Ardern, &

Discussion 175
Tamim, 2013). It has been linked to significant increases in physical harm resulting from

adverse events (Divi, Koss, Schmaltz, & Loeb, 2007) and to longer hospitalisation (John‐

Baptiste et al., 2004). Participants argued that as errors and adverse events were evident in

contexts where health care workers and their patients did speak the same language, it was

easy to imagine how the likelihood of error increased in contexts where they are faced with

language discordance. For instance, an Australian retrospective study of ICU admissions (n

= 20,082) found that patients’ low English-speaking status significantly and independently

increases the risk of death with an odds ratio of 1.91 (p < 0.001) (Douglas, Delpachitra,

Paul, McGain, & Pilcher, 2014).

Participants described feelings of guilt and frustration at the limitations on the

quality of their care imposed by language discordance. Sullivan (1993, p. 445) explains

this frustration, for both patients and health care professionals, as the amount of

information lost because “even the best interpreter may not ask the questions I have asked,

and may misinterpret, abridge, amend or modify the patient’s response”. Language

discordance is also found to have a significant influence on the understanding of discharge

instructions (Karliner et al., 2012). In addition to the frustration resulting from the feeling

of not being able to care for their patients as they wish, participants also expressed concern

with the patients’ low health literacy.

Health literacy is “the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain,

process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate

health decisions” (Parker, Ratzan, & Lurie, 2003, p. 147). Low health literacy has been

associated with low health status, high hospitalisation, poor disease management and less

use of preventive measures, resulting in decreased health care quality and increased cost

(Berkman, Sheridan, Donahue, Halpern, & Crotty, 2011; Nielsen-Bohlman, Panzer, &

Kindig, 2004; The Joint Commission, 2007). Mistrust of the health system and the medical

team, not communicating their medical history to the surgical team, use of Saudi

Discussion 176
traditional medicine, and lack of adherence to post-operative instructions were the main

issues related to health literacy raised by participants. Improving health literacy is

considered an essential and strategic aspect of any health system (Andrulis & Brach, 2007;

Nielsen-Bohlman et al., 2004; Nutbeam, 2000, 2008); and it is not only a patient

phenomenon but equally a system phenomenon (Paasche-Orlow & Wolf, 2007).

Schyve (2007, p. 360) describes cultural differences, language discordance and a

low level of health literacy as the “triple threat” to effective health communication. This

was evident in the results of this study, when participants expressed their lack of

satisfaction with (and increased frustration about) their levels of connection and

communication with their patients. Patients with successful communication skills are

characterised as actively engaged with their health management, exemplified by their

willingness to discuss health concerns, to ask questions and explain symptoms (Hester &

Stevens-Ratchford, 2009; Mead & Bower, 2000; Zolnierek & DiMatteo, 2009). A high

level of health literacy has been linked to patients’ empowerment, which is essential for

communication to be successful (Tones, 2002).

The relationship between culture, language and health literacy has been described

as complex (Andrulis & Brach, 2007). Culture and language are recognised as barriers to

the improvement of health literacy, as they set barriers upon the attainment and use of

health literacy skills and, ultimately, of patient safety (Johnstone & Kanitsaki, 2006;

Nielsen-Bohlman et al., 2004; Singleton & Krause, 2009). Culture is particularly

implicated among patients from a minority culture, usually with low levels of proficiency

in the main language, within a mainstream culture (Andrulis & Brach, 2007; IOM, 2009;

John‐Baptiste et al., 2004; McLean et al., 2012; Parker et al., 2003; Singleton & Krause,

2009). However, the difference in this study is that the majority (if not all) of Saudi

Arabian patients speak the one language, Arabic, which is different from the expatriate

health care professionals’ (Al-Shahri, 2002; Luna, 1998). However, the effect of the

Discussion 177
patients’ cultural background and language on interpreting health messages delivered in

poor Arabic or in translation remains applicable(Berkman et al., 2011; Singleton & Krause,

2009). The difficulty of understanding Saudi Arabian culture, which is described as

conservative, plus the communication barriers manifested by language differences, results

in a perception of systemic and persistent low health literacy in Saudi Arabian patients.

More significantly, this study finds that the health care professionals’ cultural

background and language influence the safety culture in operating theatres. Although

literature on the influence of health care professionals’ multiculturalism on patient safety

until now has been non-existent (Almutairi et al., 2013). Following is the discussion of this

influence.

7.1.2. Employees’ cultural background and patient safety

This study links the cultural background and language of health care professionals

to patient safety. A new dimension, multicultural workplace, looking at the association

between cultural traits and safety culture, was developed and tested. The elements of this

dimension (gender, communication and cultural background) have their foundations and

essence in the anthropological concept of culture (Best, Williams, & Matsumoto, 2001;

Kress, 1988; Mills, 1988; Phillips, 2013); they are also relevant to safety culture. In

addition to the significant correlation between the multicultural workplace dimension and

other dimensions of the safety climate, their relevance is evident in the interviewees’

views: different aspects of safety culture are linked to the multicultural nature of their

workplaces.

Safety culture is argued to be a subculture of organisational culture (Cooper, 2000;

Frazier et al., 2013; Guldenmund, 2000), and national culture is argued to influence

organisational culture (Hofstede, 1984). Hofstede (1983, p. 75) indicates that “[a] key issue

for organization science is the influence of national cultures on management”, rejecting the

Discussion 178
widespread perception of his time of the universality of management. He suggests that the

influence of national culture on organisational culture is based in politics, sociology and

psychology (1983, p. 75–76). Organisations are influenced by national identity when they

try to adapt to a host society’s norms and regulations. One reason for seeking a society’s

approval is to attract consumers (patients in health care organisations) and, most

importantly, employees. These employees are influenced by their national psychology, and

thus play a role in changing the organisation’s culture. Although Hofstede’s claims are

based on studies of corporate businesses, this study finds that they are equally relevant to

health care providers.

7.1.3. Multicultural workplace dimension

Respondents from 28 different nationalities participated in the first phase of this

study. The way professionals perceive working with colleagues from different nationalities

and cultures was investigated through newly developed items: ‘Working with personnel

from different cultures does not reduce the quality of communication’, ‘I do not find it

difficult to work with employees of the opposite gender’ and ‘I do not find it difficult to

work with employees from another culture’. The results of the exploratory factor analysis

showed that the three items above had good psychometric properties, indicating the

presence of a multicultural workplace dimension, and suggesting a relationship between

multiculturalism and the quality of work, and of the work environment (see Section 5.4.3).

Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.79 indicates that this dimension has strong internal

consistency. Its overall mean is 3.6 out of 5 (SD = 0.96), indicating that respondents held

moderately negative perceptions of their multicultural workplace (< 4, equivalent to

“agree” on the scale); only at one site did 60 per cent of respondents hold a positive

perception. Nurses, as well as females, had significantly lower perceptions of their

Discussion 179
multicultural workplaces. These results indicate the need for improvement in the way

workplaces handle their multinational and multicultural workforces.

The multicultural workplace dimension significantly correlated with teamwork

climate, safety climate , job satisfaction and stress recognition: that is, it significantly

correlated with all valid SAQ dimensions except working conditions. With the exception

of stress recognition, which correlated negatively with all other dimensions from the

original scale, the multicultural workplace dimension correlated positively with all valid

dimensions of the SAQ. This shows the importance and relevance of this dimension to the

internationally validated safety climate.

The three items constituting the multicultural workplace dimension related to the

respondents’ perceptions of the effect of three important cultural aspects: communication,

gender and cultural background. Respondents’ perceptions of the effect of multiculturalism

on the quality of communication were less positive than their perceptions of the effect of

gender and cultural background on their dealings with each other. However, none exceeded

the cut-off mean for positive perception, 4 out of 5 (equivalent to “agree” on the scale).

This shows that quality of communication is most affected by the presence of a

multicultural workforce, a finding supported by the results of the quality of communication

rating scale and the interviews.

7.1.4. Communication
To answer the second research question, a part of SAQ investigating the quality of

communication and collaboration between health care professionals was retained;

however, it was limited in this study to the measurement of communication only, to avoid

confusion for participants. Despite this, the results are comparable with studies by Makary

et al. (2006) and Thomas, Sexton & Helmreich (2003): in all three, each group rates

highest its fellow professionals (except surgeons in Makary et al.’s study), and nurses rate

Discussion 180
other groups lower than the rating they receive in return. This indicates two major findings:

the presence of sub-cultures within each site (represented by professions), and the presence

of some issues faced by nurses.

Conventionally, the quality of communication ratings scale is analysed by reporting

differences between the means each group receives (ANOVA) (Makary et al., 2006), or

simply reporting the percentage of the times a group is rated “high” or “very high”

(Makary et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2003). The accuracy of the personal judgement or

rating of others has been argued to play a significant part in such questions (Funder, 1999),

and in response to this argument, a new independent variable that accounts for the rating

behaviour of respondents was developed and used in this study, as in others (Makary et al.,

2006): as respondents tend to rate colleagues from the same profession higher than those

from other groups, an independent variable that measured how individuals rated their own

profession’s communication was added to the analysis. The newly developed independent

variable, named “rating behaviour”, was found to have significantly strong and positive

correlation with all the ratings received by each group (p < 0.001).

This slight modification (above) to the standard analysis of the SAQ provides a

better understanding of the communication between professions in operating theatres as the

“rating behaviour” variable can be included in multiple regressions. This analysis indicated

that, controlling for rating behaviour, profession and language were among the significant

factors predicting the rating of quality of communication. Nurses rated other professional

groups significantly lower than the rating they received from each. In addition, non-Arabic

respondents had lower perceptions of the quality of communication, despite English being

the formal language used by employees in MOH hospitals (Tumulty, 2001). Only 13 per

cent of respondents in the first phase indicated they spoke English in their homes, so the

majority of health care workers in operating theatres spoke English as a second language,

Discussion 181
supporting earlier findings (Aldossary et al., 2008). These findings support the results of

the multicultural workplace dimension, especially regarding the quality of communication.

Communication in English as a second language has several implications for

employees and patient safety. One main problem is that semantic differences in

expressions and accents lead to misunderstanding, anxiety and ultimately affecting safety

(Woodrow, 2006). Employees speaking English as a second language may be reluctant to

admit not understanding a task or instructions, to avoid embarrassment (Brunero, Smith, &

Bates, 2008). Participants in the second phase of this study indicated similar issues,

expressing difficulty in understanding different accents, being misunderstood, and feeling

foreign and isolated. It was indicated that “even [though] we speak English, it is different

... we were not raised as English people ... sometimes we don’t get to understand each

other ... It’s not only between Arabs and us, also among us”. Such differences point out

some of the issues that are constantly present in health care work. While the setting of this

study differs from the Australian, English-speaking one of Brunero et al. (2008), the

findings are similar.

7.1.5. Gender and cultural background

The work environment is found to be influenced by national (local) culture, a

finding in alignment with the seminal work by Hofstede (1983) regarding the influence of

local culture on organisational cultures and work environments. The patriarchal Saudi

culture, as described by the participants of the interviews, influenced the work

environment. Nurses summarised the influence of the local culture (in the form of gender

in this case) on work environment as “this is a male-dominated society; women don’t have

much of a say here and most nurses are female and not of this country”. This could be an

explanation for gender appearing as a significant predictor of the multicultural workplace

dimension, of which females had significantly lower perceptions than their male

Discussion 182
colleagues. Highly-gendered societies have been reported to influence female workers

negatively, especially in the form of inequality between genders (Mumtaz, Salway,

Waseem, & Umer, 2003). The transferability of the masculine/feminine constructs of the

local culture into an organisational culture was a significant finding of Hofstede’s (1983)

work.

The dominant culture (usually the local culture) has been found to clash with

minority cultures in the workplace and affect its people (Konno, 2006). The present study

finds that although locals constituted less than a third (29.4%) of a workforce comprising

28 nationalities; they were still the largest and most dominant group. MOH statistics

indicate that 36.2 per cent of nurses and 23.8 per cent of physicians in Saudi Arabia are

locals (MOH, 2012). Lower percentages of Saudi Arabian nurses are reported elsewhere:

12 per cent in ICU settings (Alayed et al., 2014) and 1.7 per cent in ambulatory settings

(Zakari, 2011).

Despite participants describing the local culture as dominant, the presence and

influence of other cultures on the work environment was evident. Participants’ descriptions

such as “we are a minority here” and “outnumbered” indicate the presence of competing

cultures in the workplace. The presence of different cultures with different levels of

influence results in some of them dominating dealings with, and expectations of, other

health care workers. Dealings based on cultural background, could be referred to as

cultural stereotyping in this context, evident in the example given by one of the

participants when she explained that colleagues from one culture “won’t talk back ... we do

understand that” and described how others took advantage of this when dealing with this

group: “they would rather keep them quiet”. This finding from the interviews supports the

importance of cultural background as an element of the multicultural workplace dimension.

Unlike other studies that have looked at multinational health care workers as a

minority group (Allan, Cowie, & Smith, 2009; Brunero et al., 2008; Omeri & Atkins,

Discussion 183
2002; Tuttas, 2014), the Saudi Arabian setting differs in the expatriate health care workers

being the majority. Despite differences, issues raised in this study support the international

evidence: there is minimal integration and interaction with the local culture (Brunero et al.,

2008; Konno, 2006). Given that the work environment is influenced by the local culture

(Hofstede, 1983), the lack of interaction and the inability of international health care

workers to immerse themselves in the culture are reflected in a lack of integration with the

work environment. In addition, this study finds some issues concerning speaking out when

patient safety is breached. Other studies report silencing, marginalisation and

discrimination (Allan et al., 2009; Konno, 2006; Omeri & Atkins, 2002; Tuttas, 2014);

however, this is not looked at from the perspective of patient safety. The ability to speak up

is a critical component of patient safety (Sayre, McNeese-Smith, Leach, & Phillips, 2012)

and the inability to speak up may result in serious adverse events. Such findings show that

a safety culture can be influenced by aspects of the general culture.

7.1.6. Manifestation of the influence of culture on safety culture

Culture manifests itself in this study in different forms: as national culture and its

influence on the work environment; or as the effect of different cultural backgrounds in

dealings between health care professionals. Regardless of the form in which culture is

manifested, it has a profound influence on safety culture. Issues linked to the influence of

cultural backgrounds, gender and communication on safety culture are revealed and

manifested in conflicts in the operating theatre. Disruptive behaviours is the term used in

the literature referring to conflict, among other issues including abuse, bullying and

intimidation in the workplace (Saxton, Hines, & Enriquez, 2009). Even though it is a long-

standing issue, agreement on a definition of disruptive behaviour is yet to be achieved

(Saxton et al., 2009). Common characteristics of disruptive health care providers (usually

physicians) were described by Pfifferling (1999, p. 57) as those who constantly (or

Discussion 184
occasionally) show “disregard for the dignity of others, especially those with less power”.

It has been reported to be both horizontal (between workers with the same power level)

and vertical (between workers with different power level) (Griffin, 2004; Lemelin, Bonin,

& Duquette, 2009).

In health care workplaces, nurses and junior physicians are the main groups

affected by disruptive behaviours (Bigony et al., 2009; Curtis, Bowen, & Reid, 2007;

Duffy, 1995; Walrath, Dang, & Nyberg, 2010). This study found that issues still rise

between nurses and physicians despite this area having been researched and written about

since the 1970s (Hodes & Van Crombrugghe, 1990). Several studies have made findings

similar to this study, indicating the universality of these issues regardless of context (Patel

et al., 2011; Rosenstein, 2011; Rosenstein & O'Daniel, 2008; Rosenstein & O’Daniel,

2006; Saxton et al., 2009). Conflict and resultant stress affect the health of care workers;

they are also found to pose risks to the safety of patients. Participants reported several

emotional and physical effects of conflicts on patients, and voiced their concern about

safety as a result. They explained how they lost concentration during the surgical

procedure because of the pressure disruptive behaviour exerted on them, and this could

have catastrophic results for patients if they handed out the wrong instrument or

miscounted their equipment.

Rosenstein and O’Daniel (2008) surveyed more than 4500 employees in 102 US

hospitals and found that 77% had witnessed disruptive behaviours. Most importantly, 71%

believed disruptive behaviours were linked to medical errors and 27% believed they were

linked to patient mortality. Surgery was the most reported of specialities in which

disruptive behaviours are exhibited (Cook, Green, & Topp, 2001; Rosenstein & O'Daniel,

2008). The safety of the employees and the patients were reported to be affected by

disruptive behaviours (Bigony et al., 2009; Walrath et al., 2010). Participants’ main

concern in this study was in the way conflicts were handled, and they complained that a

Discussion 185
lack of proper solutions and inadequate handling of conflicts increased their stress. This is

a recurrent issue in the literature of disruptive behaviour (Pfifferling, 1999; Rosenstein,

2011; Rosenstein & O'Daniel, 2008; Saxton et al., 2009).

Generally, conflicts in theatres mainly develop around time, resources and work

roles (Lingard et al., 2004a; Lingard, Garwood, & Poenaru, 2004b; Lingard, Reznick,

Espin, Regehr, & DeVito, 2002). Conflict between cultures (the dominant against the

minorities) is also a major source of conflict (Brunero et al., 2008; Omeri & Atkins, 2002).

In addition to these findings, which are relevant to this study, the inability to handle stress

is also found to be a major source of conflict in operating theatres. Theatres are identified

as stressful places in this study and elsewhere (Rosenstein & O'Daniel, 2008). Respondents

believed that conflicts started when colleagues could not handle stress, especially during

surgical procedures.

Handling stress is considered part of operating theatre non-technical skills (Flin,

O'Connor, & Crichton, 2008; Mitchell & Flin, 2008). Surgical and technical difficulties,

increased workloads, time pressures, distractions and interruptions were among the most

reported stressors (Arora et al., 2010a; Arora et al., 2009; Sevdalis, Forrest, Undre, Darzi,

& Vincent, 2008; Sevdalis, Healey, & Vincent, 2007; Wetzel et al., 2006). Despite stress

being recognised as undermining surgical performance and elevating risks, coping

strategies are yet to be fully acknowledged and incorporated into surgical training (Arora et

al., 2010b; Wetzel et al., 2006).

When looking through cultural lenses, conflicts or disruptive behaviours may be

seen as a result of tensions between different levels of cultures. Culture, in its

anthropological form described by Hofstede (1991) as software of the mind, influences

actions and thinking, and helps to form human nature and personality. Culture is learnt

(Hofstede, 1991), not innate, and conflict may be expected when expectations from

different groups of people are based on their cultural assumptions (Briley, Morris, &

Discussion 186
Simonson, 2000; Brislin, 1993). There are different levels and categories of culture, as

described by Schein (2010), such as macrocultures, organisational cultures, subcultures

and microcultures, and the influence of context in distinguishing between different levels

of cultures is a major contributor to the complexity of this topic: for instance, looking at

medicine as a subculture of hospital or as a macroculture with its own subcultures, as

described in section 2.6, will alter the perception of cultural influence: in other words, it is

difficult if not impossible to specify which category and level of culture drives an action

that results in conflict.

To illustrate, consider a conflict between a Swedish female nurse working with a

Japanese male surgeon in a paediatric Saudi Arabian surgical theatre. In this scenario there

are different levels of culture that could contribute to conflict, regardless of its type,

making it difficult to know which one is the prime driver, or if it is operating solely or

jointly. The conflict may occur at the profession level–nurse vs. physician (Lingard et al.,

2002); but is the profession level a macroculture, influenced by international assumptions

common to nursing or surgical professions, or a subculture of the hospital’s organisational

culture and influenced (indirectly) by the Saudi Arabian national culture? Or has a single

aspect of a national culture influenced the conflict, as might occur if assumptions about

gender clashed, given that the masculinity index of Sweden is 5, but 95 for Japan

(Hofstede et al., 2010). Masculinity index is a relative index with higher values relate to

distinct emotional gender roles such as men expected to be assertive and tough unlike

women whom are supposed to be modest and tender; whereas near 0 values relate to

overlap between these emotional gender roles between both genders (Hofstede et al.,

2010).

Different levels and categories of culture associated with safety culture in operating

theatres have different influences. Safety culture is one category of the broad concept of

culture and is both influenced by, and influences, other categories and levels of cultures.

Discussion 187
The multicultural workplace dimension was developed and tested to investigate the

perceptions of health care professionals about the influence of multiculturalism on the

safety climate and, ultimately, culture, in their workplaces. It was found to be strongly

associated with other internationally validated dimensions of safety climate. The strong

relevance of this dimension to other dimensions of the safety climate and to the Saudi

Arabian context showed the importance of this dimension to the improvement of patient

safety, which answers the third question about the areas of patient safety that need to be

improved. While the other dimensions are still relevant to patient safety, the influence of

culture is considered to be the one aspect that will most benefit from improvement,

because it is relatively new concept.

7.2. Adaptation of SAQ in the Saudi context

This section answers the first research question and its sub-questions. It discusses

the use of the SAQ and its applicability to the Saudi Arabian context with exploration of

the respondents’ characteristics and provides an overview of the safety climate and culture

in operating theatres in Saudi Arabia.

The first phase yielded a response rate of just above 60 per cent, considered

representative of safety climate and ultimately descriptive of safety culture (Sexton et al.,

2006a). The highest response was from nurses (71.8%) who are traditionally more

responsive than physicians (Hamdan, 2013; Schwendimann et al., 2013). Additionally, in

the present study, there was a very low rate of missing data, and a large number of

responses to open-ended questions. The number and relevance of issues raised in the open-

ended questions, the representative response rate, and the low missing values are indicative

of the acceptability of the SAQ in Saudi Arabian operating theatres.

Discussion 188
 7.2.1. Composite scale reliability
Composite scale reliability for the SAQ (0.88) was as strong as in the original study

(0.90) (Sexton et al., 2006a). Cronbach’s alphas for the dimensions ranged between 0.71

and 0.82 except for the perception of management dimension (0.44). One of the perception

of management items, hospital management does not knowingly compromise the safety of

patients, has previously shown problems in confirmatory factor analysis’ results:

Zimmerman and colleagues (2013) excluded this statement from their analysis as it lacked

clarity to their participants.

The confirmatory factor analysis’ goodness-of-fit indices were used to investigate

the construct validity of the SAQ and were satisfactory. The p value of less than 0.001 was

one of the issues of the model fit to the data, mainly resulting from using a large sample

(Jöreskog, 1969). TLI (0.85) and CFI (0.87) were just below the recommended level of >

0.90, and RMSEA (0.06) was below the critical value of 0.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

Examination of the correlation matrix showed moderate relationships between the

six dimensions. The highest correlation was between teamwork climate and safety climate

(r = 0.71). Interestingly, the correlation between these two in the original study was 0.72

(Sexton et al., 2006a). The lowest correlation was found between stress recognition and all

other dimensions, as in other studies (de Carvalho & de Bortoli Cassiani, 2012; Göras,

Wallentin, Nilsson, & Ehrenberg, 2013; Kaya et al., 2010; Nordén-Hägg et al., 2010;

Sexton et al., 2006a). Stress recognition has previously been considered distinct and

detached from other dimensions (Zimmermann et al., 2013); it is the only dimension

excluded, for ambiguous reasons, from the Chinese version of SAQ (Lee et al., 2010)

Stress recognition was the only dimension that showed significant differences

between the Arabic and English text on the univariable analysis. This difference was not

significant when adjusted for other potential predictors (i.e. using multiple regressions).

Discussion 189
This indicates that the difference was more related to the respondents’ demographics than

to the translation.

It is concluded that the Arabic translation of the SAQ, with the exception of the

perception of management dimension, is a reliable and valid tool to investigate patient

safety in Arabic operating theatres. Given that there were issues with psychometric

properties of the perception of management, it was not clear if the translation was affected

by these issues or it was more related to the differences in understanding the concept of

management. The understanding of the concept of management is considered to be

influenced by different cultural backgrounds which is recommended to be taken into

account in any cross-cultural adaptation of the perception of management dimension

(Zimmermann et al., 2013). The perception of management dimension is not discussed

here because of the psychometric problems reported earlier.

No Arabic translation of SAQ was located at the time of the initiation of this study

in late 2010 and early 2011; however, two studies later emerged reporting results of Arabic

translated tools (Abdou & Saber, 2011; Hamdan, 2013). Unfortunately, attempts to obtain

these two tools, to compare and critique translations, were unsuccessful. Despite reporting

the results of their studies, a psychometric analysis of their translation and cultural

adaptation was not reported. In this study, a rigorous translation process was followed by

psychometric analysis resulting in a valid and reliable Arabic translation of the operating

theatre version of the SAQ.

7.2.2. SAQ benchmarking

This study used the SAQ to explore six different and distinct, but related,

dimensions of safety climate in six different operating theatre departments in Saudi Arabia.

The highest scoring dimension in this study was job satisfaction (4/5). The mean of job

satisfaction is the highest in other studies conducted in Arabic countries (Abdou & Saber,

Discussion 190
2011; Alayed et al., 2014; Hamdan, 2013; Zakari, 2011) and internationally (de Carvalho

& de Bortoli Cassiani, 2012; Schwendimann et al., 2013). The lowest mean in this study is

found in the perception of management, in addition to the psychometric issues presented

above; this too is as found in other studies (Alayed et al., 2014; Kaya et al., 2010; Relihan,

Glynn, Daly, Silke, & Ryder, 2009; Sexton et al., 2006a).

Overall, safety climate dimensions in Saudi Arabian operating theatres are

comparable to other studies used SAQ in different contexts and cultures (Figure 9; Table

7.1). More importantly, variations are evident between and within clinical areas, which

supports previous findings (Schwendimann et al., 2013; Sexton et al., 2006a). In addition

to examining mean scores (either using a 1-5 scale, or a conversion into a percent, with

100% representing a ‘5’, 75% representing a ‘4’, 50% a ‘3’, 25% a ‘2’ and 0% a ‘1’, SAQ

results may also be presented and compared based on the percentage of respondents

holding a positive attitude (> 4/5) on a given dimension in a given clinical area.

Respondents with positive attitudes on a given safety dimension were those who agreed or

strongly agreed on all items of that dimension (Sexton et al., 2006a). Operating theatres

where less than 60 per cent of respondents report positive safety attitudes are places that

can benefit from efforts to improve quality and safety (Schwendimann et al., 2013).This

study had only two dimensions where any of the sites exceeded the 60 per cent threshold:

job satisfaction and stress recognition. Four sites out of six had more than 60 per cent of

their respondents positively satisfied with their jobs (job satisfaction), but only one had

more than 60 per cent recognising the effect of stress on their work (stress recognition).

While job satisfaction rates were high, other dimensions of the safety climate need

improvement.

Uniquely, this study subjected the results to regression analysis in an effort to

identify the important predictors of a safety climate. It found that the work site is one of the

most important factors influencing perceptions of patient safety in operating theatres. Site

Discussion 191
is a significant predictor of each dimension of the safety climate, indicating the presence of

a distinct safety culture in each site. This finding is in line with claims that SAQ is a

sensitive tool for detecting differences at the unit and hospital level (Sexton et al., 2006a);

age and profession of respondents are also significant predictors of most dimensions. In

this study, younger respondents held less positive perceptions of safety than their older

colleagues in all dimensions except stress recognition; similarly, young groups of

professionals had the least positive perceptions of most safety climate dimensions in

international settings (Holden, Watts, & Walker, 2009).

In regard to profession as a significant factor, nurses’ perceptions of safety were

less positive than other professions’. Comments about the work environment and system in

open-ended questions came mainly from nurses. Internationally, nurses have lower

perceptions of safety climate than physicians (Listyowardojo, Nap, & Johnson, 2011;

Singer et al., 2009), but the nurses in Saudi Arabia had an extra negative influence derived

from culture-related issues that affected them and their work. Nursing in Saudi Arabia is

dominated by non-Arabic females working in a male-dominated environment, as

participants in the interviews made clear.

Culture (represented by nationality) and gender were among the significant factors

affecting workers’ perceptions of stress recognition. Non-Arabic nationals and female staff

had less favourable perceptions of the effect of stress on them. Gender is an aspect of

culture, so culture seems to affect several aspects of safety climate and, ultimately, safety

culture.

Discussion 192
Table 7.1: Summary of international studies reporting SAQ results

Study Setting n returned SAQ version Comment

(%)
Sexton et al., Mixed professions in 2 385 (67%) Operating International
2006a operating theatres theatres benchmarking
version
Abdou & Saber, Nurses in a university 165 (na) Generic Translated to
2011 hospital in Egypt version Arabic
Hamdan, 2013 Nurses and physicians in 204 ICU version Translated to
16 NICU (69.2%) Arabic
Zakari, 2011 Nurses in 4 ambulatory 221 (88%) Ambulatory
departments in a hospital version
in Saudi Arabia
Alayed et al., Nurses from 6 ICUs in 216 (64%) ICU version
2014 different hospitals in
Saudi Arabia
Kaya et al., 2009 Mixed professions in 1349 Inpatient Translated to
general inpatient wards (67.5%) version Turkish
in 10 Turkish hospitals
Zimmermann et Nurses and physicians 313 (79%) Inpatient Translated to
al., 2013 from inpatient version German
departments in two Swiss
hospitals
Schwendimann et Nurses and physicians 1057 (85%) Inpatient Compared to
al, 2013 from inpatient version Swiss sample
departments in 10 US
hospitals
Nordén-Hägg et Pharmacy personnel from 4090 Generic Translated to
al., 2010 828 Swedish pharmacies (60.2%) version Swedish
Relihan et al., All staff at an acute 55 (60%) Generic
2009 medical admission unit in version
Ireland
de Carvalho & de Mixed professions from 1301(86%) Generic
Bortoli Cassiani, wards in 6 hospitals in version
2012 Brazil

Discussion 193
 UK – operating theatres (Sexton et al., 2006a); Egypt – wards (Abdu & Saber, 2011);
Palestine – ICU (Hamdan, 2013); Saudi 1 – Ambulatory (Zakari, 2011);
Saudi 2 – ICU (Alayed et al., 2014); Turkey – wards (Kaya et al., 2009);
Switzerland – wards (Zimmermann et al., 2013); US – wards (Schwendimann et al, 2013);
Sweden – pharmacies (Nordén-Hägg et al., 2010); Ireland– wards (Relihan et al., 2009);
Brazil – wards (de Carvalho & de Bortoli Cassiani, 2012).

Figure 9: Comparison of means on each dimension from international settings

Note: the majority of the studies reported means as 0–100, so means were converted from 1–5 into
0–100 following this formula (0–100 mean) = (1–5 mean)*25–25. A higher score is indicative of a
stronger patient safety culture.

Discussion 194
 Teamwork climate
Teamwork is widely recognised as a vital component of patient safety, especially in

operating theatres (Kohn et al., 2000; Undre, Sevdalis, Healey, Darzi, & Vincent, 2006).

Issues related to the quality of teamwork, such as miscommunication, lack of collaboration

and lack of respect, are among the findings of the interviews. The importance of these

issues has long been known and argued (Baggs & Schmitt, 1988; Baggs et al., 1999; Flin

& Maran, 2004; Lamb & Napodano, 1984; Manser, 2009; Undre et al., 2006; Yule et al.,

2006). In this study, the perception of the quality of the teamwork climate was less than

optimal, with a mean less than 75 out of 100. Concerns were raised about the quality of

teamwork, summarised as “it goes a very long way for people to understand that we are a

team, we work together”. As in the multinational workplace dimension, culture and

cultural backgrounds were found to underpin these concerns. Respondents indicated being

dealt with based on their cultural backgrounds, and this affected important aspects of

teamwork including cohesion with and collaboration between team members (Baker,

Amodeo, Krokos, Slonim, & Herrera, 2010; Undre et al., 2006). Positive and strong

teamwork is considered an integral part of positive safety culture, characterised by less

errors (Baggs et al., 1999; Saufl, 2004).

Safety climate
A positive safety climate has been described as a proactive system promoting

patient safety (Sexton et al., 2006a). Proactive systems have been argued to influence

patient safety positively by implementing measures that encourage safe behaviours

(Cooper & Phillips, 2004). They are based on the notion of learning from previous

mistakes to avert new ones before they occur or result in harm to the patients (Coyle,

Sleeman, & Adams, 1996; DeJoy, 2005; Frazier et al., 2013). Unfortunately, respondents

had less than positive perceptions about safety climate in their workplaces, which could be

an issue of concern. Nurses and younger respondents made up the two groups with

Discussion 195
significantly low perceptions. Nurses indicated in the interviews that they felt unrecognised

as professionals and unappreciated, which could have limited their input into (and their

perceptions of) the system.

Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was the only dimension with positive perceptions (i.e. a mean

score of 4 out of 5) among the respondents. High staff morale, satisfaction and autonomy

have been listed as indicators of the job satisfaction dimension (Sexton et al., 2006a),

which has been linked to a positive safety culture, attractive work environment, and

increase in self-satisfaction (Aiken et al., 2008; Duffield et al., 2009; Judge & Bono, 2001;

Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011). Despite the reported challenges of the system in

which respondents work, interestingly, they also reported high job satisfaction. Knowing

that the balance between job demand and job resources has been linked to, and sometimes

presented as, job satisfaction (Nielsen, Mearns, Matthiesen, & Eid, 2011) makes one

assume that the balance is still maintained despite these challenges.

Stress recognition
An operating theatre is recognised as a stressful environment (Rosenstein &

O'Daniel, 2008), which necessitates understanding by health care professionals to of the

effect of stress on their mental ability and performance (Arora et al., 2009; Arora et al.,

2010b; Wetzel et al., 2006). Along with stress, fatigue from long hours of intense

concentration impairs professional judgement and responses (Williamson et al., 2011).

This study found that respondents had less than optimal responses to stress recognition,

especially nurses and those of non-Arabic origin. Non-Arabic nurses indicated in the

interviews that they coped with the stressors they were exposed to by trying to ignore

them, believing that this strategy helped them to compensate for the lack of support they

received to deal with difficulties and stressors.

Discussion 196
 Working condition
Participants had less than optimal perceptions about their working conditions,

another element associated with patients’ outcomes and employees’ satisfaction (Aiken,

Sloane, Bruyneel, Van den Heede, & Sermeus, 2013; Nahrgang et al., 2011). Respondents

complained about staff shortages, a problem linked directly to increased workload and low

job satisfaction, and in higher risks for patients (Aiken et al., 2013; Stone et al., 2007).

Furthermore, conflicts in operating theatres and their resulting frustrations created more

negative feelings about the working conditions. This was also exacerbated by the lack of

proper conflict resolution, in specific, and the lack of compliance to policy and procedures

in general. In spite of this low perception of working conditions, respondents still held

positive job satisfaction which could be related back to the balance between job demands

and job resources (see Section [Link]).

Perception of management
Approval of management action has been linked to positive safety culture (Sexton

et al., 2006a). Management action has been recognised as leading patient safety

improvements and is an important dimension of safety culture (Colla et al., 2005;

Guldenmund, 2010). The confirmatory factor analysis showed some statistical issues with

this dimension in particular. It has been suggested that the concept of management differs

from one context to another, or from one nation to another (Zimmermann et al., 2013), and

Warner (2014) recently produced a work discussing the influence of different Asian

cultures on the style and understanding of management. In Saudi Arabia, Al-Saleh and

Ramadan (2011) found discrepancies between the expectations of front-line employees and

their managers, which showed different understandings of the responsibilities of managers.

Discussion 197
7.3. Summary
This chapter interpreted the results of this study and has integrated the findings of

the quantitative and qualitative methods in light of the relevant literature. The Multicultural

workplace dimension development, its relevance to patient safety in general and other

safety climate dimensions in specific were discussed. The influence of different levels and

categories of culture on patient safety was also presented. SAQ’s translation and

applicability to the Saudi context was discussed along with its dimensions.

Discussion 198
Chapter 8: Conclusion
This chapter recaps the significant aspects of this study and highlights the issues

raised. It provides recommendations for improvements in patient safety in Saudi Arabian

operating theatres and similar settings. After a discussion of the strengths and limitations of

the study, potential areas of future research are identified.

8.1. Summary of this study

In a belief of the importance of research in advancing the science and practice of

patient safety, this study set out to explore patient safety in Saudi Arabian operating

theatres. Health care professionals (surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses and anaesthesia

technicians) working in operating theatres in hospitals in Riyadh City under the aegis of

MOH, the main health provider in Saudi Arabia, were targeted. A quantitative

measurement of the safety culture in their operating theatres offered an excellent

opportunity to consider the factors that help or hinder the practice of patient safety. This is

a complex topic, and its complexity is acknowledged in the breadth and width of the

knowledge acquired using a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach in which data

were collected in two phases, using a qualitative method in the second phase to explore and

explain issues arising from the first, quantitative, phase.

An internationally validated tool was adopted, translated and tested in Saudi

Arabian settings. It showed good psychometric properties generally, although there was

some concern about the validity of one dimension. When compared with international data,

participants’ perceptions of each dimension under study were very much in the middle of

international norms; this leaves considerable room for improvement. They were satisfied

with their jobs, but did not have positive perceptions of teamwork climate, safety climate,

stress recognition, or working conditions. Concern was raised about the quality of

Conclusion 199
communication between professional groups. All these have been found to have an impact

on patient safety.

A newly developed tool measuring the multicultural workplace dimension was

validated to investigate the influence of different cultures on the work environment. It was

found to be relevant to other valid dimensions of the SAQ, endorsing its importance and

relevance to safety in operating theatres.

Culture, in general, is shown to affect almost all aspects of the safety climate and

safety culture in Riyadh City hospitals. The local culture has a great influence on the work

environment, and cultural backgrounds of employees are clearly linked to issues relating to

teamwork and communication. The lack of an effective system to achieve cultural

integration, and inadequate approaches to conflict resolution, are two elements relating to

cultural influences on the work environment that impact negatively on patient safety

culture. The importance of anthropological culture in influencing patient safety is easily

deduced from the results.

8.2. Recommendations
This research set out to investigate patient safety in Saudi Arabian operating

theatres, and the recommendations suggested here are based on the interpretation of its

findings in light of current and related literature. Significant issues are addressed, and these

recommendations should improve patient safety if implemented. Assessment of

implemented recommendations should be conducted regularly to ensure the maximum

benefit to patients.

Lack of harmony between different cultural backgrounds in the operating theatres is

evident. Effort should focus on creating a more equitable and accepting atmosphere

between all professionals regardless of nationality or background. Findings from the

multicultural workplace dimension indicate that multiculturalism has been a burden instead

Conclusion 200
of being an advantage (Pedersen, 2013). Effort should be focused on enhancing social

activities among employees that will help in creating more understanding of each other. In

addition, health care workers in operating theatres should have the chance to engage

socially with the wider community. Participants reported concern about their failure to

integrate with the Saudi Arabian community. Exposure to the wider community would

help them to experience and appreciate Saudi Arabian culture first-hand. The importance

of integration with the local community is advocated internationally (Konno, 2006).

One of the hindrances to cultural interaction is the reported inability to speak

Arabic, the national language, in spite of being in Saudi Arabia for an extended period of

time. Based on the wishes of participants, this study recommends that hospitals provide

classes for their non-Arabic-speaking professionals. These classes should aim at equipping

health care professionals with conversational Arabic language and, theoretically should

improve the ability of expatriate healthcare workers to communicate with Saudi Arabian

patients.

Along with issues in speaking the local language, respondents expressed concerns

about communication and teamwork. Training that targets improvements in

communication skills and teamwork should be conducted on a regular basis. Such

programs have been shown to improve different aspects of communication and teamwork,

such as collaboration and respect (Baker et al., 2010; Gillespie et al., 2010; Gillespie et al.,

2013; King et al., 2006; Stead et al., 2009; Weaver et al., 2013). In particular, the team

training should focus on potential issues around a multicultural workforce.

Nurses, the majority of whom were women from non-Arabic speaking countries,

expressed their concern about working in a male-dominated work environment. Given that

the majority of all other professional groups were males, nurses recommended the need for

male nursing leaders to help in balancing power. One potential solution would be for

hospitals to appoint Saudi Arabian male nursing leaders in the short term to help to balance

Conclusion 201
the power in the operating theatres. In the long term, hospitals should invest in the

development and training of leadership skills in nurses (male and female) and work to

enhance policies and procedures that will facilitate and enforce equity and equality.

There are different contributors to conflict between team members in operating

theatres. One important issue is the inability to handle stress, an inevitable component of

operating theatres. The most concerning issue about conflict in operating theatres was the

way in which it was handled. Given their effect on health care workers and their patients,

and patient safety, supervisors and managers should have more training in conflict

resolution. This could be prevented from happening by using different tactics such as

graded assertiveness which is a stepped process to escalate safety-related concerns (Curtis,

Tzannes, & Rudge, 2011). In short, safety culture should be enhanced to empower people

to stand up for their own safety and the safety of their patients.

8.3. Strengths and limitations

One of the main strengths of this study is the use of a mixed methods approach to

investigate a very complex topic, to combine the breadth and generalisability of a

quantitative survey with the depth provided by qualitative interviews. Analysing the data

of the first phase before the collection of data in the second phase, a sequential-explanatory

mixed methods design, enriched the study by allowing the findings to build on each other.

Both findings help in explaining, supporting and confirming each other.

This study also translated, tested and validated the SAQ in Saudi Arabian settings.

It approached this existing tool in a number of different and innovative ways. For example,

the tool was translated into Arabic and administered in a format that allowed either English

or Arabic speakers to complete the same questionnaire. Additionally, new items were

added to the questionnaire, and novel forms of analysis were used, for example, the

Conclusion 202
development of the rating behaviour independent variable and using multiple regressions

analysis on the SAQ to identify predictors of safety climate.

In spite of the advantages gained by collecting the data of the second phase after

analysing the data of the first phase, a year’s gap between these stages could be seen as a

limitation. Circumstances of hospitals and employees changed during this time; however,

the researcher remained conscious of the time gap during data collection and analysis. As

the data collected in the second phase supported the data of the first phase, this indicated a

minimal effect of the time gap.

It might also be argued that the researcher, being a male and a Saudi Arabian, could

have had an influence during the interviews with non-Arabic females in the second phase

in regard to the openness and the depth of information provided. Being aware of this

possibility, the researcher tried to manage this limitation by fully explaining to the

participants the nature of the research, and explained that the researcher was completely

independent of the hospitals. The level of voluntary participation by participants, who

approached the researcher after the presentation, the perceived openness of the interviews,

and their depth, are suggestive of the minimal effect of this possible limitation on the

results.

Despite sites D and F being significantly different from each other in the first phase

in most dimensions, findings from both sites in the second phase were similar. One

explanation is that the findings of the second phase, issues concerning culture, are relevant

to all multinational workforces in Saudi Arabia regardless of the hospital they work in.

While MOH is the main health provider in Saudi Arabia and Riyadh is the largest

and most populated city in the nation, the collection of data from a single city may be seen

as a limitation. The researcher believes that the results are applicable to other Saudi cities

and health organisations due to the similarities in their situations: run by the same health

Conclusion 203
provider (MOH), the presence of multicultural workforce and providing the services to

Saudi Arabian patients.

8.4. Future research

Future research could explore the culture component of safety culture, following on

from the findings from this study. Larger studies to investigate cultural influence on patient

safety across the country are recommended. The newly developed dimension, multicultural

workplace, should be investigated in different settings and cultures to test if it has wider

international application.

This study provides an Arabic translation of the SAQ with its psychometric

analysis. The perception of management dimension does not have good psychometric

properties and should be further investigated, as should differences in culturally influenced

understandings of the concept of management.

The second stage of this study interviewed non-Arabic-speaking female nurses.

Other research could be conducted to investigate physicians’ and patients’ perceptions of

the issues raised here, to see if the findings are applicable to Arabic-speaking nurses and to

male nurses as well. If they are, they reinforce the finding that national and social culture

are influencers on safety culture, and indicate even more strongly that action, particularly

through education and better shared understandings for all parties, is required to address

those issues that have an impact on patient safety in Saudi Arabian hospitals.

Conclusion 204
References
Abdou, H. A., & Saber, K. M. (2011). A baseline assessment of patient safety culture
among nurses at Student University Hospital. World Journal of Medical Sciences,
6(1), 17-26.

Abdullah, M. A. (1993). Traditional practices and other socio-cultural factors affecting the
health of children in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Tropical Paediatrics, 13(3), 227-232.

Aboshaiqah, A. E., & Baker, O. G. (2013). Assessment of Nurses' Perceptions of Patient

Safety Culture in a Saudi Arabia Hospital. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 28(3),
272-280.

Aboul-Enein, B. H., & Aboul-Enein, F. H. (2009). The cultural gap delivering health care
services to Arab American populations in the United States. Journal of Cultural
Diversity, 17(1), 20-23.

ACSNI. (1993). Human Factros Study Group, Third Report: Organising for Safety.
London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

ACSQHC. (2005). Safe Staffing Consultation Report. Canberra: Australian Council for
Safety and Quality in Health Care.

Adams, K. E. (2002). Patient choice of provider gender. Journal of the American Medical
Women's Association (1972), 58(2), 117-119.

AHRQ. (2011). Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Retrieved 23 Mrach, 2011,
from [Link]
safety/patientsafetyculture/[Link]

Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Lake, E. T., & Cheney, T. (2008). Effects of
hospital care environment on patient mortality and nurse outcomes. The Journal of
Nursing Administration, 38(5), 223-229.

Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J., & Silber, J. H. (2002). Hospital
nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction. JAMA,
288(16), 1987-1993.

Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Bruyneel, L., Van den Heede, K., & Sermeus, W. (2013).
Nurses’ reports of working conditions and hospital quality of care in 12 countries in
Europe. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(2), 143-153.

Al-Ahmadi, T. A. (2009). Measuring patient safety culture in Riyadh’s hospitals: a

comparison between public and private hospitals. Journal of Egypt Public Health
Association, 84(5-6), 479-500.

Al-Mazrou, Y., Khoja, T., & Rao, M. (1995). Health services in Saudi Arabia. Proceeding
of Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

205
Al-Saleh, K. S., & Ramadan, M. Z. (2011). Direct and Indirect Employee Questionnaires
for Assessing Patient Safety in Saudi Hospitals. Applied Medical Informatics,
26(2), 63-72.

Al-Shahri, M. Z. (2002). Culturally sensitive caring for Saudi patients. Journal of

Transcultural Nursing, 13(2), 133-138.

Alahmadi, H. A. (2010). Assessment of patient safety culture in Saudi Arabian hospitals.

Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(5), 1-5.

Alayed, A. S., Lööf, H., & Johansson, U.-B. (2014). Saudi Arabian ICU safety culture and
nurses’ attitudes. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 27(7),
581-593.

Aldossary, A., While, A., & Barriball, L. (2008). Health care and nursing in Saudi Arabia.
International Nursing Review, 55(1), 125-128.

Allan, H. T., Cowie, H., & Smith, P. (2009). Overseas nurses’ experiences of
discrimination: a case of racist bullying? Journal of Nursing Management, 17(7),
898-906.

AlMunajjed, M. (1997). Women in Saudi Arabia Today. London: Macmillan.

Almutairi, A. F., Gardner, G., & McCarthy, A. (2013). Perceptions of clinical safety
climate of the multicultural nursing workforce in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional
survey. Collegian, 20(3), 187-194.

Alothman, A. (2013). 10,000 beds and 10 hospitals in the next two years. Al-jazirah.
Retrieved 11 Dec. 2013 from [Link]

Alyamany, H. (2013). Communication in verbal hand-over reports: Nurses' experiences

from in-patients hospital unit in Saudi Arabia - Qualitative study. Middle East
Journal of Nursing, 7(3).

Andrulis, D. P., & Brach, C. (2007). Integrating literacy, culture, and language to improve
health care quality for diverse populations. American Journal of Health Behavior,
31(Supplement 1), S122-S133.

Arora, S., Hull, L., Sevdalis, N., Tierney, T., Nestel, D., Woloshynowych, M., . . .
Kneebone, R. (2010a). Factors compromising safety in surgery: stressful events in
the operating room. The American Journal of Surgery, 199(1), 60-65.

Arora, S., Sevdalis, N., Nestel, D., Tierney, T., Woloshynowych, M., & Kneebone, R.
(2009). Managing intraoperative stress: what do surgeons want from a crisis
training program? The American Journal of Surgery, 197(4), 537-543.

Arora, S., Sevdalis, N., Nestel, D., Woloshynowych, M., Darzi, A., & Kneebone, R.
(2010b). The impact of stress on surgical performance: A systematic review of the
literature. Surgery, 147(3), 318-330.e316.

Asuni, T. (1979). Modern medicine and traditional medicine. In Z. A. Ademuwagun, J. A.

Ayoade, I. E. Harrison & D. M. Warren (Eds.), African therapeutic systems (pp.
176-181). New York: Academic Press.

206
Babbie, E. R. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baggs, J. G., & Schmitt, M. H. (1988). Collaboration between nurses and physicians.
Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 20(3), 145-149.

Baggs, J. G., Schmitt, M. H., Mushlin, A. I., Mitchell, P. H., Eldredge, D. H., Oakes, D., &
Hutson, A. D. (1999). Association between nurse-physician collaboration and
patient outcomes in three intensive care units. Critical Care Medicine, 27(9), 1991-
1998.

Baker, D. P., Amodeo, A. M., Krokos, K. J., Slonim, A., & Herrera, H. (2010). Assessing
teamwork attitudes in healthcare: development of the TeamSTEPPS teamwork
attitudes questionnaire. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(6), 1-4.

Baker, G. R., Norton, P. G., Flintoft, V., Blais, R., Brown, A., Cox, J., . . . Majumdar, S. R.
(2004). The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events
among hospital patients in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal,
170(11), 1678-1686.

Barraclough, B. H. (2004). Advancing the patient safety agenda: An Australian

perspective. Paper presented at the Improving Qulaity of Health Care in the United
States and the United Kingdom: Strategies for Change and Action, Pennyhill Park,
Bagshot, England.

Bates, D. W., Cohen, M. Z., Leape, L. L., Overhage, J. M., Shabot, M. M., & Sheridan, T.
B. (2001). Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information
technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 8(4), 299-
308.

Bates, D. W., Leape, L. L., Cullen, D. J., Laird, N., Petersen, L. A., Teich, J. M., . . . Shea,
B. (1998). Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on
prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA, 280(15), 1311-1316.

Bates, D. W., Spell, N., Cullen, D. J., Burdick, E., Laird, N., Petersen, L. A., . . . Leape, L.
L. (1997). The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA, 277(4),
307-311.

Battles, J. B., & Lilford, R. J. (2003). Organizing patient safety research to identify risks
and hazards. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12(suppl 2), ii2-ii7. doi:
10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii2

Bednash, G. (2000). The decreasing supply of registered nurses: inevitable future or call to
action? Jama, 283(22), 2985-2987.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.

Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J., & Crotty, K. (2011). Low
health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Annals of
Internal Medicine, 155(2), 97-107.

207
Best, D. L., Williams, J. E., & Matsumoto, D. (2001). Gender and culture. In D.
Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 195-219). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Bigony, L., Lipke, T. G., Lundberg, A., McGraw, C. A., Pagac, G. L., & Rogers, A.
(2009). Lateral violence in the perioperative setting. AORN Journal, 89(4), 688-
700.

Bjerke, B., & Al-Meer, A. (1993). Culture's consequences: management in Saudi Arabia.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(2), 30-35.

Blake, S. C., Kohler, S., Rask, K., Davis, A., & Naylor, D. V. (2006). Facilitators and
barriers to 10 National Quality Forum safe practices. American Journal of Medical
Quality, 21(5), 323-334.

Braithwaite, J., Hindle, D., Finnegan, T. P., Graham, E. M., Degeling, P. J., & Westbrook,
M. T. (2004). How important are quality and safety for clinician managers?
Evidence from triangulated studies. Clinical Governance: an International Journal,
9(1), 34-41.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The Role of Factor-Analysis in the Development and
Evaluation of Personality-Scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106-148.

Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2000). Reasons as carriers of culture:
Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 157-178.

Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture's influence on behavior. San Diego, CA:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Brown, C., Hofer, T., Johal, A., Thomson, R., Nicholl, J., Franklin, B. D., & Lilford, R. J.
(2008). An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design
and interpretation. Part 1. Conceptualising and developing interventions. Quality &
Safety in Health Care, 17(3), 158-162.

Brown, C., & Lilford, R. J. (2008). Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance
patient safety. BMJ, 337, 159-163.

Brown, C. A., & Busman, M. (2003). Expatriate health-care workers and maintenance of
standards of practice factors affecting service delivery in Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 16(7), 347-353.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newsbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Brunero, S., Smith, J., & Bates, E. (2008). Expectations and experiences of recently
recruited overseas qualified nurses in Australia. Contemporary Nurse, 28(1-2), 101-
110.

208
Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2005). The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique,
and Utilization (5th ed.). St Louis: Elsevier Saunders.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Campbell, J. J., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial
behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed‐method evaluation designs. New
Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 19-32.

CDSI. (2013). Statistical Yearbook. Riyadh: CDSI printings.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through

Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational

Researcher, 21(6), 13-17.

Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative
Research, 6(3), 319-340.

Christian, C. K., Gustafson, M. L., Roth, E. M., Sheridan, T. B., Gandhi, T. K., Dwyer, K.,
. . . Dierks, M. M. (2006). A prospective study of patient safety in the operating
room. Surgery, 139(2), 159-173.

Christians, C. G. (2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 61-80).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Clarke, S. (2000). Safety culture: under‐specified and overrated? International Journal of

Management Reviews, 2(1), 65-90.

Colla, J. B., Bracken, A. C., Kinney, L. M., & Weeks, W. B. (2005). Measuring patient
safety climate: a review of surveys. Quality & safety in health care, 14(5), 364-366.

Cook, A. F., Hoas, H., Guttmannova, K., & Joyner, J. C. (2004). An error by any other
name. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 104(6), 32-43.

Cook, J. K., Green, M., & Topp, R. V. (2001). Exploring the impact of physician verbal
abuse on perioperative nurses. AORN Journal, 74(3), 317-331.

Cook, T. D., & Reichardt, C. S. (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation
research (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills: Sage publications.

Cooper, M. D. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36(2), 111-136.

Cooper, M. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and
safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497-512.

Coyle, I. R., Sleeman, S. D., & Adams, N. (1996). Safety climate. Journal of Safety
Research, 26(4), 247-254.

209
Crang, M. (2013). Cultural geography. New York: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research desgin: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook
of mixed methods in the social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cullen, W. D. (1990). The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. London: Her
Majesty's Stationery Office.

Curtis, J., Bowen, I., & Reid, A. (2007). You have no credibility: Nursing students’
experiences of horizontal violence. Nurse Education in Practice, 7(3), 156-163.

Curtis, K., Tzannes, A., & Rudge, T. (2011). How to talk to doctors–a guide for effective
communication. International Nursing Review, 58(1), 13-20.

Cuschieri, A. (2006). Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice. Annals of
Surgery, 244(5), 642-648.

de Carvalho, R. E. F. L., & de Bortoli Cassiani, S. H. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation of

the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire-Short Form 2006 for Brazil. Revista Latino-
Americana de Enfermagem, 20(3), 575-582.

De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. London SAGE.

de Vries, E. N., Ramrattan, M. A., Smorenburg, S. M., Gouma, D. J., & Boermeester, M.
A. (2008). The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic
review. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 17(3), 216-223.

Deilkås, E. T., & Hofoss, D. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of
the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), generic version (short form 2006). BMC
Health Services Research, 8(1), 191.

DeJoy, D. M. (2005). Behavior change versus culture change: Divergent approaches to

managing workplace safety. Safety Science, 43(2), 105-129.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and

organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.
Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619-654.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoritical introduction to sociological methods

(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

210
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Devriendt, E., Van den Heede, K., Coussement, J., Dejaeger, E., Surmont, K., Heylen, D., .
. . Boonen, S. (2012). Content validity and internal consistency of the Dutch
translation of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: an observational study.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(3), 327-337.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Vol. 2).
New York: Wiley.

Divi, C., Koss, R. G., Schmaltz, S. P., & Loeb, J. M. (2007). Language proficiency and
adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. International Journal for Quality in
Health Care, 19(2), 60-67.

Donabedian, A. (1988). The quality of care: How can it be assessed? JAMA, 260(12),
1743-1748.

Donaldson, L. (2009). An international language for patient safety Global progress in

patient safety requires classification of key concepts. International Journal for
Quality in Health Care, 21(1), 1-1.

Dorrian, J., Lamond, N., Van Den Heuvel, C., Pincombe, J., Rogers, A. E., & Dawson, D.
(2006). A pilot study of the safety implications of Australian nurses' sleep and work
hours. Chronobiology International, 23(6), 1149-1163.

Douglas, J., Delpachitra, P., Paul, E., McGain, F., & Pilcher, D. (2014). Non-English
speaking is a predictor of survival after admission to intensive care. Journal of
Critical Care, 29(5), 769-774.

Duffield, C. (2007). Glueing it Together-Nurses Their Work Environment and Patient

Safety: Final Report July 2007. Sydney: UTS, Centre for Health Services
Management.

Duffield, C., Roche, M., O’Brien-Pallas, L., Catling-Paull, C., & King, M. (2009). Staff
satisfaction and retention and the role of the nursing unit manager. Collegian,
16(1), 11-17.

Duffy, E. (1995). Horizontal violence: a conundrum for nursing. Collegian, 2(2), 5-17.

Edmonds, C. R., Liguori, G. A., & Stanton, M. A. (2005). Two cases of a wrong-site
peripheral nerve block and a process to prevent this complication. Regional
Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 30(1), 99-103.

Ekvall, G. (1983). Climate, structure and innovativeness of organizations: A theoretical

framework and an experiment. Stockholm: FArådet, the Swedish Council for
Management and Organizational Behaviour.

European Union Network for Patient Safety. (2010). Use of Patient Safety Culture
Instruments and Recommendations. Denmark: European Sciety for Quality in
Healthcare.

211
Farrell, V. E., & Davies, K. A. (2006). Shaping and cultivating a perioperative culture of
safety. AORN journal, 84(5), 857-861.

Fennell, D. (1988). Investigation into the King's Cross underground fire. London: The
Department of Transport.

Fero, L. J., Witsberger, C. M., Wesmiller, S. W., Zullo, T. G., & Hoffman, L. A. (2009).
Critical thinking ability of new graduate and experienced nurses. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 65(1), 139-148.

Fleming, M. (2005). Patient safety culture measurement and improvement: a “how to”
guide. Healthcare Quarterly, 8, 14-19.

Fleming, M., & Wentzell, N. (2008). Patietn safety culture improvement tool: development
and guidelines for use. Healthcare Quarterly, 11, 10-15.

Flin, R. (2007). Measuring safety culture in healthcare: A case for accurate diagnosis.
Safety Science, 45(6), 653-667.

Flin, R., Burns, C., Mearns, K., Yule, S., & Robertson, E. M. (2006). Measuring safety
climate in health care. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 15(2), 109-115. doi:
10.1136/qshc.2005.014761

Flin, R., & Maran, N. (2004). Identifying and training non-technical skills for teams in
acute medicine. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(suppl 1), i80-i84.

Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate:
identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 177-192.

Flin, R., O'Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-
technical skills. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Frazier, C. B., Ludwig, T. D., Whitaker, B., & Roberts, D. S. (2013). A hierarchical factor
analysis of a safety culture survey. Journal of Safety Research, 45, 15-28.

Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Gaba, D. M. (2000). Anaesthesiology as a model for patient safety in health care. BMJ,
320(7237), 785-788.

Gaba, D. M., Singer, S. J., Sinaiko, A. D., Bowen, J. D., & Ciavarelli, A. P. (2003).
Differences in safety climate between hospital personnel and naval aviators.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
45(2), 173-185.

Gallagher, E. B., & Searle, M. C. (1985). Health services and the political culture of Saudi
Arabia. Social Science & Medicine, 21(3), 251-262.

Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2003). Analysis of
errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery, 133(6), 614-621.

212
Geller, E. S. (1994). TEN PRINCIPLES FOR ACHIEVING A TOTAL SAFETY
CULTURE (TSC). Professional Safety, 39(9), 18-24.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A sample guide and
reference (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gillespie, B. M., Chaboyer, W., & Murray, P. (2010). Enhancing communication in

surgery through team training interventions: a systematic literature review. AORN
journal, 92(6), 642-657.

Gillespie, B. M., Gwinner, K., Chaboyer, W., & Fairweather, N. (2013). Team
communications in surgery-creating a culture of safety. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 27(5), 387-393.

Glendon, A. I., & Stanton, N. A. (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety Science,
34(1), 193-214.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological

climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3),
601-616.

Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative methods in social science. New York ; London:

Continuum.

Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research.
Berkshire: McGraw-Hill International.

Göras, C., Wallentin, F. Y., Nilsson, U., & Ehrenberg, A. (2013). Swedish translation and
psychometric testing of the safety attitudes questionnaire (operating room version).
BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 104.

Govender, V., & Penn-Kekana, L. (2008). Gender biases and discrimination: a review of
health care interpersonal interactions. Global public health, 3(S1), 90-103.

Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative methods of health research. London: Sage
Publications.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11(3), 255-274.

Griffin, M. (2004). Teaching cognitive rehearsal as a shield for lateral violence: An

intervention for newly licensed nurses. Journal of Continuing Education in
Nursing, 35(6), 257-263.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

213
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important
Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-180.

Guldenmund, F. W. (2000). The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research.
Safety Science, 34(1-3), 215-257.

Guldenmund, F. W. (2007). The use of questionnaires in safety culture research–an

evaluation. Safety Science, 45(6), 723-743.

Guldenmund, F. W. (2010). (Mis) understanding safety culture and its relationship to

safety management. Risk Analysis, 30(10), 1466-1480.

Halligan, M., & Zecevic, A. (2011). Safety culture in healthcare: a review of concepts,
dimensions, measures and progress. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(4), 338-343.

Hamdan, M. (2013). Measuring safety culture in Palestinian neonatal intensive care units
using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Journal of Critical Care, 28(5),
886.e887-886.e814.

Hansen, E. C. (2006). Successful qualitative health research: A practical introduction.

Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Hansen, L. O., Williams, M. V., & Singer, S. J. (2011). Perceptions of hospital safety
climate and incidence of readmission. Health Services Research, 46(2), 596-616.

Hansen, M. M., Durbin, J., Sinkowitz-Cochran, R., Vaughn, A., Langowski, M., &
Gleason, S. (2003). Do no harm: Provider perceptions of patient safety. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 33(10), 507-508.

Harris, K. T., Treanor, C. M., & Salisbury, M. L. (2006). Improving patient safety with
team coordination: challenges and strategies of implementation. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 35(4), 557-566.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Helmreich, R. L. (2011). [Permession to use SAQ through e-mail].

Helmreich, R. L., Foushee, H. C., Benson, R., & Russini, W. (1986). Cockpit resource
management: exploring the attitude-performance linkage. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine.

Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., Sherman, P. J., Gregorich, S. E., & Wiener, E. L. (1993).
The flight management attitudes questionnaire (FMAQ). Austin, University of
Texas, 93-94.

Hester, E. J., & Stevens-Ratchford, R. (2009). Health literacy and the role of the speech-
language pathologist. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(2),
180-191.

Hickam, D. H., Severance, S., Feldstein, A., Ray, L., Gorman, P., Schuldheis, S., . . .
Helfand, M. (2003). The Effect of Health Care Working Conditions on Patient
Safety: Summary.

214
Hidden, A. (1989). Investigation into the Clapham Junction Railway Accident. London:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Hindle, D., Braithwaite, J., Travaglia, J., & Iedema, R. (2006). Patient safety: a
comparative analysis of eight inquiries in six countries. Sydney: Centre for Clinical
Governance Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of NSW.

Hodes, J. R., & Van Crombrugghe, P. (1990). Nurse-physician relationships. Nursing

Management, 21(7), 73-75.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.

Journal of International Business Studies, 75-89.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific

Journal of Management, 1(2), 81-99.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-
Hill UK.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software
of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Holden, L. M., Watts, D. D., & Walker, P. H. (2009). Patient safety climate in primary
care: age matters. Journal of Patient Safety, 5(1), 23-28.

Hopkins, A. (2006). Studying organisational cultures and their effects on safety. Safety
Science, 44(10), 875-889.

IOM. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.
Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

IOM. (2009). Toward Health Equity and Patient-Centeredness: Integrating Health Literacy,
Disparities Reduction, and Quality Improvement: Workshop Summary.
Washingtion, DC: National Academies Press.

Ireri, S., Walshe, K., Benson, L., & Mwanthi, M. A. (2011). A qualitative and quantitative
study of medical leadership and management: experiences, competencies, and
development needs of doctor managers in the United Kingdom. Journal of
Management & Marketing in Healthcare, 4(1), 16-29.

Jackson, J., Sarac, C., & Flin, R. (2010). Hospital safety climate surveys: measurement
issues. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 16(6), 632-638

James, J. T. (2013). A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with

hospital care. Journal of Patient Safety, 9(3), 122-128.

Jeffcott, S. A., & Mackenzie, C. F. (2008). Measuring team performance in healthcare:

review of research and implications for patient safety. Journal of Critical Care,
23(2), 188-196.

Jha, A. K., Prasopa-Plaizier, N., Larizgoitia, I., & Bates, D. W. (2010). Patient safety
research: an overview of the global evidence. Quality and Safety in Health Care,
19(1), 42-47.

215
John‐Baptiste, A., Naglie, G., Tomlinson, G., Alibhai, S. M., Etchells, E., Cheung, A., . . .
Bacchus, M. (2004). The Effect of English Language Proficiency on Length of Stay
and In‐hospital Mortality. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(3), 221-228.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Johnstone, M.-J., & Kanitsaki, O. (2006). Culture, language, and patient safety: making the
link. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 18(5), 383-388.

Johnstone, M.-J., & Kanitsaki, O. (2008). Cultural racism, language prejudice and
discrimination in hospital contexts: an Australian study. Diversity in Health and
Social Care, 5(1), 19-30.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor

analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183-202.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-

esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with
job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1), 80.

Kable, A. K., Gibberd, R. W., & Spigelman, A. D. (2002). Adverse events in surgical
patients in Australia. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 14(4), 269-
276.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.

Karliner, L. S., Auerbach, A., Nápoles, A., Schillinger, D., Nickleach, D., & Pérez-Stable,
E. J. (2012). Language barriers and understanding of hospital discharge
instructions. Medical Care, 50(4), 283-289.

Kaya, S., Barsbay, S., & Karabulut, E. (2010). The Turkish version of the safety attitudes
questionnaire: psychometric properties and baseline data. Quality and Safety in
Health Care, 19(6), 572-577.

Khan, L. A., & Khan, S. A. (2000). Clinical approach to patient treatment by traditional
cauterization. Saudi medical journal, 21(12), 1195-1196.

Kidder, L. H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories
converge. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(35), 57-75.

King, H. B., Battles, J. B., Baker, D. P., Alonso, A., Salas, E., Webster, J., . . . Salisbury,
M. L. (2006). TeamSTEPPS: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance
and Patient Safety: Citeseer.

Kirk, S., Parker, D., Claridge, T., Esmail, A., & Marshall, M. (2007). Patient safety culture
in primary care: developing a theoretical framework for practical use. Quality and
Safety in Health Care, 16(4), 313-320.

216
Kivimäki, M., Sutinen, R., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., Räsänen, K., Töyry, S., . . . Firth-
Cozens, J. (2001). Sickness absence in hospital physicians: 2 year follow up study
on determinants. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(6), 361-366.

Kizer, K. W. (1999). The" new VA": a national laboratory for health care quality
management. American Journal of Medical Quality, 14(1), 3-20.

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The Study of Culture. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The
Policy Science (pp. 86 - 101). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J., & Donaldson, M. S. (2000). To err is human: building a safer
health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Konno, R. (2006). Support for overseas qualified nurses in adjusting to Australian nursing
practice: a systematic review. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare,
4(2), 83-100.

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness.

American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.

Kress, G. (1988). Communication and culture: An introduction. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamb, G. S., & Napodano, R. J. (1984). Physician-nurse practitioner interaction patterns in

primary care practices. American Journal of Public Health, 74(1), 26-29.

Landrigan, C. P., Rothschild, J. M., Cronin, J. W., Kaushal, R., Burdick, E., Katz, J. T., . . .
Bates, D. W. (2004). Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical
errors in intensive care units. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(18), 1838-
1848.

Leape, L. L. (1994). Error in Medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association,
272(23), 1851-1857.

Leape, L. L. (2008). Scope of problem and history of patient safety. Obstetrics and
Gynecology Clinics of North America, 35(1), 1-10

Leape, L. L., Bates, D. W., Cullen, D. J., Cooper, J. B., Demonaco, H. J., Gallivan, T., . . .
Laffel, G. (1995). Systems analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA, 274(1), 35-43.

Lee, T. (1998). Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant. Work &
Stress, 12(3), 217-237.

Lee, W.-C., Wung, H.-Y., Liao, H.-H., Lo, C.-M., Chang, F.-L., Wang, P.-C., . . . Hou, S.-
M. (2010). Hospital safety culture in Taiwan: a nationwide survey using Chinese
version safety attitude questionnaire. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 234.

Leigh, J. A., Long, P. W., & Barraclough, B. H. (2004). The clinical support systems
program: supporting system-wide improvement. Medical Journal of Australia,
180(10), S101.

217
Lemelin, L., Bonin, J.-P., & Duquette, A. (2009). Workplace violence reported by
Canadian nurses. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 41(3), 152-167.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). Ethical practices in qualitative research. In D. M. Mertens & P. E.

Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 150-169). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Lingard, L., Espin, S., Whyte, S., Regehr, G., Baker, G. R., Reznick, R., . . . Grober, E.
(2004a). Communication failures in the operating room: an observational
classification of recurrent types and effects. Quality and Safety in Health Care,
13(5), 330-334.

Lingard, L., Garwood, S., & Poenaru, D. (2004b). Tensions influencing operating room
team function: does institutional context make a difference? Medical Education,
38(7), 691-699.

Lingard, L., Reznick, R., Espin, S., Regehr, G., & DeVito, I. (2002). Team
communications in the operating room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and
implications for novices. Academic Medicine, 77(3), 232-237.

Listyowardojo, T. A., Nap, R. E., & Johnson, A. (2011). Variations in hospital worker
perceptions of safety culture. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 1-7

Long, D. E. (2005). Culture and customs of Saudi Arabia: Pennselvania State Press.

Luna, L. (1998). Culturally competent health care: a challenge for nurses in Saudi Arabia.
Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 9(2), 8-14.

Mackey, S. (2002). The Saudis: Inside the desert kingdom. New York: WW Norton &
Company.

Makary, M. A., Sexton, J. B., Freischlag, J. A., Holzmueller, C. G., Millman, E. A.,
Rowen, L., & Pronovost, P. J. (2006). Operating room teamwork among physicians
and nurses: teamwork in the eye of the beholder. Journal of the American College
of Surgeons, 202(5), 746-752.

Malone, M., & Al Gannass, A. (2012). The use of herbal medicine in diabetic foot
complications: A case report from a Saudi Arabian Bedouin. Wound Practice &
Research: Journal of the Australian Wound Management Association, 20(1), 46-52.

Manser, T. (2009). Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: a

review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 53(2), 143-151.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage.

Marshall, M., Parker, D., Esmail, A., Kirk, S., & Claridge, T. (2003). Culture of safety.
Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12(4), 318-318.

218
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498-512.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (3rd ed.).

Los Angeles: Sage.

Mazzocco, K., Petitti, D. B., Fong, K. T., Bonacum, D., Brookey, J., Graham, S., . . .
Thomas, E. J. (2009). Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. The American
Journal of Surgery, 197(5), 678-685.

McFerran, S., Nunes, J., Pucci, D., & Zuniga, A. (2005). Perinatal patient safety project: a
multicenter approach to improve performance reliability at Kaiser Permanente. The
Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 19(1), 37-45.

McLean, M., Al Yahyaei, F., Al Mansoori, M., Al Ameri, M., Al Ahbabi, S., & Bernsen,
R. (2012). Muslim women's physician preference: beyond obstetrics and
gynecology. Health Care for Women International, 33(9), 849-876.

Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2000). Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of
the empirical literature. Social Science & Medicine, 51(7), 1087-1110.

Mead, R., & Andrews, T. G. (2009). International management (4th ed.). England: John
Wiley & Sons.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2010). Philosophy in mixed methods teaching: The transformative

paradigm as illustration. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,
4(1), 9-18.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qulaitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, A. J. (1988). Organization, gender and culture. Organization Studies, 9(3), 351-369.

Ministry of Finance. (2013). Recent Economic Developments and Highlights of Fiscal

Years 1434/1435 (2013) & 1435/1436 (2014) [Press release]

Mitchell, L., & Flin, R. (2008). Non‐technical skills of the operating theatre scrub nurse:
literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(1), 15-24.

MOH. (2012). Health Statistical Year Book. Riyadh: MOH printings.

MOH. (2014). Doupling of MOH beds by 1440H. Retrieved 20 Nov., 2014, from
[Link]
[Link]

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological

implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.

219
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.
Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123.

Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Inc.

Mufti, M. H. (2000). Healthcare development strategies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mumtaz, Z., Salway, S., Waseem, M., & Umer, N. (2003). Gender-based barriers to
primary health care provision in Pakistan: the experience of female providers.
Health Policy and Planning, 18(3), 261-269.

Murphy, J. P. (1990). Pragmatism: From Pierce to Davidson. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Nagpal, K., Vats, A., Lamb, B., Ashrafian, H., Sevdalis, N., Vincent, C. A., & Moorthy, K.
(2010). Information transfer and communication in surgery: a systematic review.
Annals of Surgery, 252(2), 225-239. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e495c2

Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: a meta-
analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout,
engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 71.

Nardi, P. M. (2003). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.

Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology:

Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.

Nielsen-Bohlman, L., Panzer, A. M., & Kindig, D. A. (Eds.). (2004). Health Literacy: A
Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nielsen, M. B., Mearns, K., Matthiesen, S. B., & Eid, J. (2011). Using the job demands–
resources model to investigate risk perception, safety climate and job satisfaction in
safety critical organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(5), 465-475.

Nieva, V. F., & Sorra, J. (2003). Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient
safety in healthcare organizations. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12(suppl 2),
ii17-ii23.

Nigenda, G., Langer, A., Kuchaisit, C., Romero, M., Rojas, G., Al-Osimy, M., . . .
Ba'aqeel, H. (2003). Womens' opinions on antenatal care in developing countries:
results of a study in Cuba, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and Argentina. BMC Public
Health, 3(17).

Nightingale, F. (1863). Notes on hospitals. London: Savill and Edwards Printers.

Nordén-Hägg, A., Sexton, J. B., Kälvemark-Sporrong, S., Ring, L., & Kettis-Lindblad, Å.
(2010). Assessing Safety Culture in Pharmacies: The psychometric validation of
the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) in a national sample of community
pharmacies in Sweden. BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, 10(1), 8.

220
Nunes, J., & McFerran, S. (2005). Perinatal Patient Safety Project. The Permanente
Journal, 9(2), 28-33.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary
health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health
Promotion International, 15(3), 259-267.

Nutbeam, D. (2008). The evolving concept of health literacy. Social Science & Medicine,
67(12), 2072-2078.

O’Connor, P., O’Dea, A., Kennedy, Q., & Buttrey, S. E. (2011). Measuring safety climate
in aviation: A review and recommendations for the future. Safety Science, 49(2),
128-138.

Oates, J., Weston, W. W., & Jordan, J. (2000). The impact of patient-centered care on
outcomes. Family Practice, 49(9), 796-804.

Omeri, A., & Atkins, K. (2002). Lived experiences of immigrant nurses in New South
Wales, Australia: searching for meaning. International Journal of Nursing Studies,
39(5), 495-505.

OPEC. (2014). Saudi Arabia. Retrieved 12 July, 2014, from

[Link]

Operation World. (2014). Saudi Arabia. Retrieved 19 May, 2014, from

[Link]

Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., & Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011). Combining qualitative
and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological
review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), 369-383.

Paasche-Orlow, M. K., & Wolf, M. S. (2007). The causal pathways linking health literacy
to health outcomes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(Supplement 1), S19-
S26.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS:
McGraw-Hill International.

Parker, R. M., Ratzan, S. C., & Lurie, N. (2003). Health literacy: a policy challenge for
advancing high-quality health care. Health Affairs, 22(4), 147-153.

Patel, P., Robinson, B. S., Novicoff, W. M., Dunnington, G. L., Brenner, M. J., & Saleh,
K. J. (2011). The disruptive orthopaedic surgeon: implications for patient safety
and malpractice liability. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 93(21), e126 121-
126.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, inc.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

221
Pedersen, P. (2013). Multiculturalism as a fourth force. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pelletier, P. L. (2001). Medication errors: a lesson from long-term care. Nursing

Management, 32(11), 49-50.

Peterson, M. W., & White, T. H. (1992). Faculty and administrator perceptions of their
environments: Different views or different models of organization? Research in
Higher Education, 33(2), 177-204.

Pfifferling, J.-H. (1999). The disruptive physician. Physician Executive, 25(2), 56-61.

Phillips, A. (2013). Gender and culture. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.

Piper, H., & Simons, H. (2005). Ethical Responsibility in Social Research. In B. Somekh &
C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 56-64). London:
Sage Publications.

Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods (7th ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Pronovost, P. J., & Sexton, J. B. (2005). Assessing safety culture: guidelines and
recommendations. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(4), 231.

Pronovost, P. J., Sexton, J. B., Pham, J. C., Goeschel, C. A., Winters, B. D., & Miller, K.
(2009). Measurement of quality and assurance of safety in the critically ill. Clinics
in Chest Medicine, 30(1), 169-179, x.

Pumar-méndez, M. J., Attree, M., & Wake, A. (2014). Methodological aspects in the
assessment of safety culture in the hospital setting : A review of the literature.
Nurse Education Today, 34, 162-170.

Qureshi, N. A., Al-Amri, A. H., Abdelgadir, M. H., & El-Haraka, E. A. (1998). Traditional
cautery among psychiatric patients in Saudi Arabia. Transcultural Psychiatry,
35(1), 75-83.

Rabøl, L. I., Andersen, M. L., Østergaard, D., Bjørn, B., Lilja, B., & Mogensen, T. (2011).
Descriptions of verbal communication errors between staff. An analysis of 84 root
cause analysis-reports from Danish hospitals. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(3), 268-
274.

Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge university press.

Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs.
In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (Vol. 1, pp. 5-39). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Reiman, T., & Oedewald, P. (2002). The assessment of organisational culture. A

methodological study. VTT Research Notes. VTT Industrial Systems, Espoo.

222
Relihan, E., Glynn, S., Daly, D., Silke, B., & Ryder, S. (2009). Measuring and
benchmarking safety culture: application of the safety attitudes questionnaire to an
acute medical admissions unit. Irish Journal ofMmedical Science, 178(4), 433-439.

Renzaho, A., Romios, P., Crock, C., & Sønderlund, A. (2013). The effectiveness of
cultural competence programs in ethnic minority patient-centered health care—a
systematic review of the literature. International Journal for Quality in Health
Care, 25(3), 261-269.

Reynolds, A. (2009). Patient-centered care. Radiologic Technology, 81(2), 133-147.

Rizk, D. E., El‐Zubeir, M. A., Al‐Dhaheri, A. M., Al‐Mansouri, F. R., & Al‐Jenaibi, H. S.
(2005). Determinants of women's choice of their obstetrician and gynecologist
provider in the UAE. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 84(1), 48-53.

Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota Press.

Rorty, R. (1990). Pragmatism as anti-representationalism. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Pragmatism:

From Pierce to Davidson (pp. 1-6). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Rosenstein, A. H. (2011). Managing disruptive behaviors in the health care setting: focus
on obstetrics services. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 204(3),
187-192.

Rosenstein, A. H., & O'Daniel, M. (2008). A survey of the impact of disruptive behaviors
and communication defects on patient safety. Joint Commission Journal on Quality
and Patient Safety, 34(8), 464-471.

Rosenstein, A. H., & O’Daniel, M. (2006). Impact and implications of disruptive behavior
in the perioperative arena. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 203(1),
96-105.

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and Words Combining Quantitative and
Qualitative Methods in a Single Large-Scale Evaluation Study. Evaluation Review,
9(5), 627-643.

Runciman, W. B., Baker, G. R., Michel, P., Jauregui, I. L., Lilford, R. J., Andermann, A., .
. . Weeks, W. B. (2008). The epistemology of patient safety research. International
Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare, 6(4), 476-486.

Runciman, W. B., Hibbert, P., Thomson, R., Van Der Schaaf, T., Sherman, H., & Lewalle,
P. (2009). Towards an International Classification for Patient Safety: key concepts
and terms. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 21(1), 18-26.

Runciman, W. B., & Moller, J. (2001). Iatrogenic injury in Australia. Adelaide: Australian
Patient Safety Foundation.

Sammer, C. E., Lykens, K., Singh, K. P., Mains, D. A., & Lackan, N. A. (2010). What is
patient safety culture? A review of the literature. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,
42(2), 156-165.

223
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing
Science, 8(3), 27-37.

Saufl, N. M. (2002). Sentinel event: wrong-site surgery. Journal of Perianesthesia

Nursing, 17(6), 420-422.

Saufl, N. M. (2004). Universal protocol for preventing wrong site, wrong procedure, wrong
person surgery. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing, 19(5), 348-351.

Saxton, R., Hines, T., & Enriquez, M. (2009). The negative impact of nurse-physician
disruptive behavior on patient safety: A review of the literature. Journal of Patient
Safety, 5(3), 180-183.

Sayre, M. M., McNeese-Smith, D., Leach, L. S., & Phillips, L. R. (2012). An educational
intervention to increase “speaking-up” behaviors in nurses and improve patient
safety. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 27(2), 154-160.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass & Sons.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Franscisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.

Schensul, J. J. (2012). Methodology, methods, and tools in qulaitative research. In S. D.

Lapan, M. T. Quartaroli & F. J. Riemer (Eds.), Qualitative research to methods and
designs. A Wiley Imprint: Jossey-Bass.

Schwendimann, R., Zimmermann, N., Küng, K., Ausserhofer, D., & Sexton, J. B. (2013).
Variation in safety culture dimensions within and between US and Swiss Hospital
Units: an exploratory study. BMJ Quality and Safety, 22(1), 32-41.

Schyve, P. M. (2007). Language differences as a barrier to quality and safety in health

care: the Joint Commission perspective. Journal of general internal medicine,
22(2), 360-361.

Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement
of organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments.
Health Services Research, 38(3), 923-945.

Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 493-511.

Searle, C. M., & Gallagher, E. B. (1983). Manpower issues in Saudi health development.
The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, 659-686.

Sears, J., Khan, K., Ardern, C. I., & Tamim, H. (2013). Potential for patient-physician
language discordance in Ontario. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 535.

Sevdalis, N., Forrest, D., Undre, S., Darzi, A., & Vincent, C. (2008). Annoyances,
disruptions, and interruptions in surgery: the Disruptions in Surgery Index (DiSI).
World Journal of Surgery, 32(8), 1643-1650.

224
Sevdalis, N., Healey, A. N., & Vincent, C. A. (2007). Distracting communications in the
operating theatre. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13(3), 390-394.

Sexton, J. B., Berenholtz, S. M., Goeschel, C. A., Watson, S. R., Holzmueller, C. G.,
Thompson, D. A., . . . Pronovost, P. J. (2011). Assessing and improving safety
climate in a large cohort of intensive care units. Critical Care Medicine, 39(5), 934-
939.

Sexton, J. B., Helmreich, R. L., Neilands, T. B., Rowan, K., Vella, K., Boyden, J., . . .
Thomas, E. J. (2006a). The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric
properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research. BMC Health Services
Research, 6(44).

Sexton, J. B., Makary, M. A., Tersigni, A. R., Pryor, D., Hendrich, A., Thomas, E. J., . . .
Pronovost, P. J. (2006b). Teamwork in the operating room: frontline perspectives
among hospitals and operating room personnel. Anesthesiology, 105(5), 877-884.

Sexton, J. B., Thomas, E. J., & Helmreich, R. L. (2000). Error, stress, and teamwork in
medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. BMJ, 320(7237), 745-749.

Shekelle, P. G., Pronovost, P. J., Wachter, R. M., Taylor, S. L., Dy, S. M., Foy, R., . . .
Rubenstein, L. V. (2011). Advancing the science of patient safety. Annals of
Internal Medicine, 154(10), 693-696.

Sherman, H., Castro, G., Fletcher, M., Hatlie, M., Hibbert, P., Jakob, R., . . . Perneger, T.
(2009). Towards an International Classification for Patient Safety: the conceptual
framework. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 21(1), 2-8.

Shortell, S. M., Zimmerman, J. E., Rousseau, D. M., Gillies, R. R., Wagner, D. P., Draper,
E. A., . . . Duffy, J. (1994). The performance of intensive care units: does good
management make a difference? Medical Care, 508-525.

Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal
of Sociology, 1335-1359.

Singer, S. J., Gaba, D. M., Falwell, A., Lin, S., Hayes, J., & Baker, L. (2009). Patient
safety climate in 92 US hospitals: differences by work area and discipline. Medical
Care, 47(1), 23-31.

Singla, A. K., Kitch, B. T., Weissman, J. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2006). Assessing patient
safety culture: a review and synthesis of the measurement tools. Journal of Patient
Safety, 2(3), 105-115.

Singleton, K., & Krause, E. (2009). Understanding cultural and linguistic barriers to health
literacy. OJIN: The online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 14(3), 11.

Sinkovics, R. R., & Ghauri, P. N. (2008). Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative

research in international business. Management International Review, 48(6), 689-
714.

Smith, C. M. (2005). Origin and uses of primum non nocere—above all, do no harm! The
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 45(4), 371-377.

225
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the
issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6-13.

Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the
quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational
Researcher, 15(1), 4-12.

Stead, K., Kumar, S., Schultz, T. J., Tiver, S., Pirone, C. J., Adams, R. J., & Wareham, C.
A. (2009). Teams communicating through STEPPS. Medical Journal of Australia,
190(11 Suppl), S128-S132.

Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New
York: Routledge.

Stock, G. N., McFadden, K. L., & Gowen III, C. R. (2007). Organizational culture, critical
success factors, and the reduction of hospital errors. International Journal of
Production Economics, 106(2), 368-392.

Stone, P. W., Mooney-Kane, C., Larson, E. L., Horan, T., Glance, L. G., Zwanziger, J., &
Dick, A. W. (2007). Nurse working conditions and patient safety outcomes.
Medical Care, 45(6), 571-578.

Sullivan, S. N. (1993). The patient behind the veil: medical culture shock in Saudi Arabia.
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 148(3), 444-446.

Suurmond, J., Uiters, E., de Bruijne, M. C., Stronks, K., & Essink-Bot, M.-L. (2010).
Explaining ethnic disparities in patient safety: a qualitative analysis. American
Journal of Public Health, 100(Suppl 1), S113-117.

Taher, S., Hejaili, F., Karkar, A., Shaheen, F., Barahmien, M., Al Saran, K., . . . Al
Sayyari, A. A. (2014). Safety Climate in Dialysis Centers in Saudi Arabia: A
Multicenter Study. Journal of Patient Safety, 10(2), 101-104.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Taylor, J. A., Dominici, F., Agnew, J., Gerwin, D., Morlock, L., & Miller, M. R. (2011).
Do nurse and patient injuries share common antecedents? An analysis of
associations with safety climate and working conditions. BMJ Quality & Safety,
21(2), 101-111.

Teddlie, C., & Johnson, R. B. (2009). Methodological thought since the 20th century. In C.
Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Foundations of mixed methods research:
Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral
sciences (pp. 62-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sape Publications.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

226
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2012). Common “Core” Characteristics of Mixed Methods
Research A Review of Critical Issues and Call for Greater Convergence. American
Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 774-788.

The Health Foundation. (2011). Evidence scan: Measuring safety culture. London: The
Health Foundation.

The Joint Commission. (2007). "What did the doctor say?:" Improving health literacy to
protect patient safety. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Joint Commission.

Thomas, E. J., Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2003). Discrepant attitudes about
teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians. Critical Care Medicine,
31(3), 956-959.

Thomas, E. J., Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Translating teamwork behaviours
from aviation to healthcare: development of behavioural markers for neonatal
resuscitation. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(suppl 1), i57-i64.

Thomson, R., Lewalle, P., Sherman, H., Hibbert, P., Runciman, W. B., & Castro, G.
(2009). Towards an international classification for patient safety: a Delphi survey.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 21(1), 9-17.

Tones, K. (2002). Health literacy: new wine in old bottles? Health Education Research,
17(3), 287-290.

Tumulty, G. (2001). Professional Development of Nursing in Saudi Arabia. Journal of

Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 285-290.

Tuttas, C. A. (2014). Perceived Racial and Ethnic Prejudice and Discrimination

Experiences of Minority Migrant Nurses A Literature Review. Journal of
Transcultural Nursing, pii: 1043659614526757.

Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., Healey, A. N., Darzi, S. A., & Vincent, C. A. (2006). Teamwork in
the operating theatre: cohesion or confusion? Journal of evaluation in clinical
practice, 12(2), 182-189.

Vance, C. M. (2005). The personal quest for building global competence: a taxonomy of
self-initiating career path strategies for gaining business experience abroad. Journal
of World Business, 40(4), 374-385.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for
organizational research. Organizational research methods, 3(1), 4-70.

Verbeke, W., Volgering, M., & Hessels, M. (1998). Exploring the conceptual expansion
within the field of organizational behaviour: Organizational climate and
organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 303-329.

Vincent, C. A., Neale, G., & Woloshynowych, M. (2001). Adverse events in British
hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. Bmj, 322(7285), 517-519.

Vincent, C. A., Taylor-Adams, S., & Stanhope, N. (1998). Framework for analysing risk
and safety in clinical medicine. Bmj, 316(7138), 1154-1157.

227
Vogel, F. E. (2000). Islamic Law and the Legal System of Saudí: Studies of Saudi Arabia
(Vol. 8). Leiden: Brill.

Wahlström, B., & Rollenhagen, C. (2009). Assessments of safety culture-to measure or not.
Paper presented at the 14th European Congress of Work and Organisational
Psychology.

Walrath, J. M., Dang, D., & Nyberg, D. (2010). Hospital RNs' experiences with disruptive
behavior: a qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 25(2), 105-116.

Walston, S. L., Al-Omar, B. A., & Al-Mutari, F. A. (2010). Factors affecting the climate of
hospital patient safety: A study of hospitals in Saudi Arabia. International Journal
of Health Care Quality Assurance, 23(1), 35-50.

Waring, J. J. (2007). Doctors' thinking about ‘the system’as a threat to patient safety.
Health:, 11(1), 29-46.

Warner, M. (Ed.). (2014). Culture and management in Asia. New York, NY: Routledge.

Watts, B. V., Percarpio, K., West, P., & Mills, P. D. (2010). Use of the safety attitudes
questionnaire as a measure in patient safety improvement. Journal of Patient
Safety, 6(4), 206-209.

Weaver, S. J., Lubomksi, L. H., Wilson, R. F., Pfoh, E. R., Martinez, K. A., & Dy, S. M.
(2013). Promoting a Culture of Safety as a Patient Safety StrategyA Systematic
Review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(5 - Part 2), 369-374.

Weiser, T. G., Regenbogen, S. E., Thompson, K. D., Haynes, A. B., Lipsitz, S. R., Berry,
W. R., & Gawande, A. A. (2008). An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a
modelling strategy based on available data. The Lancet, 372(9633), 139-144.

Wetzel, C. M., Kneebone, R. L., Woloshynowych, M., Nestel, D., Moorthy, K., Kidd, J., &
Darzi, A. (2006). The effects of stress on surgical performance. The American
Journal of Surgery, 191(1), 5-10.

WHO. (2009). WHO Guidelines for Safe Surgery 2009: Safe Surgery Saves Lives.
Geneva: WHO.

WHO. (2013). Country Cooperation Strategy for WHO and Saudi Arabia 2012–2016
Cairo: Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.

Williamson, A., Lombardi, D. A., Folkard, S., Stutts, J., Courtney, T. K., & Connor, J. L.
(2011). The link between fatigue and safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
43(2), 498-515.

Wilson, R. M., Michel, P., Olsen, S., Gibberd, R. W., Vincent, C. A., El-Assady, R., . . .
Sahel, A. (2012). Patient safety in developing countries: retrospective estimation of
scale and nature of harm to patients in hospital. BMJ, 344(e832).

Wilson, R. M., Runciman, W. B., Gibberd, R. W., Harrison, B. T., Newby, L., &
Hamilton, J. D. (1995). The Quality in Australian health care study. Medical
Journal of Australia, 163(9), 458-471.

228
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC journal,
37(3), 308-328.

World Alliance for Patient Safety. (2009). More than words: Conceptual framework for the
international classification of Patient Safety - Final technical report version 1.1.
Geneva: WHO.

Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson-Brown, S., & Maran, N. (2006). Non-technical skills for
surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature. Surgery, 139(2), 140-
149.

Zakari, N. M. (2011). Attitude of academic ambulatory nurses toward patient safety culture
in Saudi Arabia. Life Science Journal, 8(3), 230-237.

Zimmermann, N., Küng, K., Sereika, S. M., Engberg, S., Sexton, J. B., & Schwendimann,
R. (2013). Assessing the safety attitudes questionnaire (SAQ), German language
version in Swiss university hospitals-a validation study. BMC Health Services
Research, 13(1), 347.

Zolnierek, K. B. H., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2009). Physician communication and patient

adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Medical Care, 47(8), 826-834.

Zwarenstein, M., & Bryant, W. (2000). Interventions to promote collaboration between

nurses and doctors. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, 2(2).

229
Appendices

230
8.5. Appendix 1: Questionnaire

231
232
233
234
235
8.6. Appendix 2(1): Ethics 1

236
237
8.7. Appendix 2(2): Ethics 2

238
239
240
241
8.8. Appendix 2(3): Ethics 3

242
243
244
245
8.9. Appendix 2(4): Ethics 4

246
8.10. Appendix 3: Ethics phase II

247
248
249
250
8.12. Appendix 4: Interview questions’ guide
The question guide used for the interviews included those questions:

 Tell me about your experience working in Saudi Arabia?

o Tell me about the similarities and differences between Saudi Arabia and

your home country?

o How did you learn to deal with those differences?

 Tell me about teamwork in operating theatres?

o Tell me about teamwork within nursing discipline and across disciplines?

o Can you give me an example of good team that you like to work with? And

why you like to work with that team?

o Can you talk about teams that you do not like to work with?

 Can you please elaborate on the reasons that make you do not want

to work with them?

 How did you deal with those teams/issues?

 Reflecting on the issues you talked about, how do they influence patient safety

positively and negatively?

o What would you change if you have the power to do so?

251