ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2016
Support for learning in the perspective of patient safety in primary health care.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto analyze the support for learning, in the perspective of patient safety, offered in the work environment, according to health professionals working in primary care.
methoda transversal study, held with 86 health professionals working in primary care. A validated instrument was used, applied via the Internet. Descriptive statistical analysis was undertaken with a presentation of median, mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation.
resultspoints which are favorable to supporting learning were evidenced, such as mutual respect, autonomy for organizing the work and valorization of new ideas, which obtained means above 7.0. The variables which hinder the process of learning in the work environment, perceived by the professionals, were: resistance to changes, and excess of work impeding reflection on how to improve the work, with means above 6.0.
conclusionthe study found evidence of indicators related to the process of staff development in the area of health and indicates the influence of support for learning for the improvement of the work processes and of patient safety. It is necessary that a culture involving the systematic assessment of educational interventions in health should be established, the aim being to diagnose actions which are more incisive for changing health professionals' attitude and, therefore, clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.