A robust culture of patient safety is central to preventing harm and improving quality of care. The authors aimed to evaluate the prevailing safety culture among clinical staff at a tertiary-care hospital in India. To do so they used the Indian-adapted version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (I-HSOPSC 2.0), with the specific objective of measuring overall perceptions and domain-level strengths and weaknesses across doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals.
The investigation was a descriptive, cross-sectional survey. The sample comprised 96 healthcare practitioners selected to represent three professional groups equally: 32 doctors, 32 nurses, and 32 allied health professionals. Respondents completed the validated I-HSOPSC 2.0 instrument to capture perceptions across multiple safety culture domains.
The study used a validated Indian adaptation of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (I-HSOPSC 2.0). This instrument measures multiple dimensions of organizational and frontline safety culture, including communication about errors, management support, teamwork, staffing, work pace, and response to errors. The authors report using the validated translation and cultural adaptation for the Indian setting.
Data analysis included descriptive statistics to summarise respondent characteristics and domain scores. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess normality of score distributions. For group comparisons across professions, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied, with Fisher’s exact test used where appropriate for categorical comparisons. The authors also conducted positive response rate analysis to interpret domain-level favourability.
The aggregate patient safety culture score reported for the sample was 3.72 ± 0.52. The authors interpreted this mean score as indicating an overall positive view of patient safety culture among the participating clinicians.
Domain analysis identified variation across the safety culture constructs. The highest-scoring domains were Communication about Errors, Management Support for Patient Safety, and Teamwork. These domains reflect relative strengths in open discussion of mistakes, perceived leadership commitment to safety, and collaborative working relationships.
Conversely, the lowest-scoring domains were Staffing, Work Pace, and Response to Errors. These lower ratings indicate concerns about workforce levels or allocation, the pace and workload experienced by staff, and how the organisation responds after errors occur. The authors highlight these as priority areas for targeted interventions to sustain and improve safety.
The study found measurable discrepancies in perceptions of safety culture between professional groups. Allied health professionals generally gave more favourable responses than nurses on several measures. The paper reports these interprofessional differences without asserting causation, indicating they may reflect role-specific experiences, workload, or expectations.
The authors reported that the research protocol was reviewed and accepted by the Scientific Review Board, Department of Hospital Administration, Yenepoya (Deemed to be University), Mangaluru, Karnataka, India (SRB No. SRB/2025/HA/PG/37859). Permission or no-objection clearance to conduct the study was obtained from the participating hospital. The research team stated that no personally identifiable information was collected and that participant consent procedures and institutional forms were archived as required. The coded data set will be made available according to the authors' statement.
The authors declared no competing interests. They confirmed compliance with relevant ethical guidelines and reporting standards. Importantly, the article is presented as a medRxiv preprint; it has not been certified by peer review, and the authors note that findings should not be used to guide clinical practice until peer-reviewed validation is available.
In this single-centre cross-sectional assessment using the I-HSOPSC 2.0, clinicians reported an overall positive perception of patient safety culture (mean 3.72 ± 0.52), with particular strengths in communication about errors, management support, and teamwork. However, lower scores for staffing, work pace, and response to errors identify actionable gaps. The authors conclude these areas require targeted attention to maintain patient safety and enhance quality of care. The reported interprofessional differences suggest that improvement initiatives may need to be tailored to the experiences and needs of specific staff groups.
Note: all information above is drawn from the reported preprint. The paper is a medRxiv preprint and has not undergone peer review; readers should interpret findings accordingly.