ArticleBMC health services research2026
Psychometric properties of the second version of the hospital survey on patient safety culture across a regional hospital system of Brazil.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization emphasizes regular patient safety culture (PSC) measurement for safer healthcare. While global interest grows, PSC awareness and measurement lags in Latin America. This study tackles the need for a validated PSC tool in Brazil. It aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture v2 (HSOPSC v2) within a regional Brazilian hospital system.
methodsThe survey was distributed to 4,152 clinical and non-clinical staff across eight private non-profit hospitals in Brazil between April and May 2023. Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's alphas for CFA models and McDonald's Omega for ESEM models. Convergent validity was tested by regressing HSOPSC v2 patient safety outcomes on factor scores of the best-fitting model. Ethical considerations were addressed through anonymous survey administration to ensure respondent privacy and encourage truthful responses.
resultsOut of 2,434 respondents (59% response rate), nurses (39%), females (72%), and those with multiple jobs (75%) were most represented. A bifactor ESEM model best fit the data, with all HSOPSC v2 items significantly linked to the general PSC factor. "Communication about Error," "Response to Error," and "Staffing and Work Pace" showed the most influence on overall PSC. While reliability was generally strong, "Staffing and Work Pace" and "Organizational Learning" showed very weak reliability. Convergent validity was supported by significant links between model factors and patient safety outcomes, with the general factor explaining the most variance in patient safety grade (28.3%).
conclusionThe HMA survey, adapted from the HSOPSC v2, demonstrates strong psychometric properties, making it a valid and reliable instrument for measuring PSC in the Brazilian healthcare context. The bifactor ESEM model's superior fit suggests the presence of a general PSC factor alongside 10 dimensions of PSC. The significant associations between model factors and patient safety outcomes highlight the survey's practical relevance. These findings support the use of the HSOPSC v2 survey for PSC measurement in Brazil, which can inform targeted interventions to improve patient safety across various hospitals and staff roles. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.