Objective: To assess variation in safety climate across VA hospitals nationally.

Study Setting: Data were collected from employees at 30 VA hospitals over a 6-month period using the Patient Safety Climate in Healthcare Organizations survey.

Study Design: We sampled 100 percent of senior managers and physicians and a random 10 percent of other employees. At 10 randomly selected hospitals, we sampled an additional 100 percent of employees working in units with intrinsically higher hazards (high-hazard units [HHUs]).

Data Collection: Data were collected using an anonymous survey design.

Principal Findings: We received 4,547 responses (49 percent response rate). The percent problematic response-lower percent reflecting higher levels of patient safety climate-ranged from 12.0-23.7 percent across hospitals (mean=17.5 percent). Differences in safety climate emerged by management level, clinician status, and workgroup. Supervisors and front-line staff reported lower levels of safety climate than senior managers; clinician responses reflected lower levels of safety climate than those of nonclinicians; and responses of employees in HHUs reflected lower levels of safety climate than those of workers in other areas.

Conclusions: This is the first systematic study of patient safety climate in VA hospitals. Findings indicate an overall positive safety climate across the VA, but there is room for improvement.

When asked who pays for health care in the United States, the usual answer is "employers, government, and individuals." Most Americans believe that employers pay the bulk of workers' premiums and that governments pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children'sHealth Insurance Program (SCHIP), and other programs.

However, this is incorrect. Employers do not bear the cost of employment-based insurance; workers and households pay for health insurance through lower wages and higher prices. Moreover, government has no source of funds other than taxes or borrowing to pay for health care.

Failure to understand that individuals and households actually foot the entire health care bill perpetuates the idea that people can get great health benefits paid for by someone else. It leads to perverse and counterproductive ideas regarding health care reform.

Context: Studies of prostitution have focused largely on individuals involved in the commercial sex trade, with an emphasis on understanding the public health effect of this behavior. However, a broader understanding of how prostitution affects mental and physical health is needed. In particular, the study of prostitution among individuals in substance use treatment would improve efforts to provide comprehensive treatment. Objectives: To document the prevalence of prostitution among women and men entering substance use treatment, and to test the association between prostitution, physical and mental health, and health care utilization while adjusting for reported history of childhood sexual abuse, a known correlate of prostitution and poor health outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, secondary data analysis of 1606 women and 3001 men entering substance use treatment in the United States who completed a semistructured intake interview as part of a larger study. Main Outcome

Measures: Self-reported physical health (respiratory, circulatory, neurological, and internal organ conditions, bloodborne infections) and mental health (depression, anxiety, psychotic symptoms, and suicidal behavior), and use of emergency department, clinic, hospital, or inpatient mental health services within the past year.

Results: Many participants reported prostitution in their lifetime (50.8% of women and 18.5% of men) and in the past year (41.4% of women and 11.2% of men). Prostitution was associated with increased risk for bloodborne viral infections, sexually transmitted diseases, and mental health symptoms. Prostitution was associated with use of emergency care in women and use of inpatient mental health services for men.

Conclusions: Prostitution was common among a sample of individuals entering substance use treatment in the United States and was associated with higher risk of physical and mental health problems. Increased efforts toward understanding prostitution among patients in substance use treatment are warranted. Screening for prostitution in substance use treatment could allow for more comprehensive care to this population.

Patient safety has been a priority in health care since Hippocrates admonished physicians to "first do no harm." Even so, the Institute of Medicine found in 2000 that approximately 98 000 patients die from preventable medical errors each year. Recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates project that 270 individuals die each day from hospital-acquired infections. Despite substantial efforts and investments, widespread and substantial improvement is not evident.

The problem is not in knowing what to do. Techniques, tools, and some best practices are available, and many health care organizations are making efforts to apply them. The importance of creating a "culture of safety" has also been noted. This involves continuous vigilance or mindfulness, learning, and accountability. A greater emphasis on safety over productivity and on teamwork over individual autonomy, increased standardization and simplification, and the implementation of an environment in which personnel are encouraged and feel comfortable to report errors and mistakes are needed.

Although creating a culture of safety is important, creating a culture of systems is a more fundamental challenge. In this Commentary, the term systems means systems of care that occur both within and across organizations. For example, in studies involving causes of adverse events in cardiac surgery, more than two-thirds were classified as nontechnical or systems-oriented issues including delays and missing equipment, and more of these problems occurred in cases with adverse outcomes than in successful cases. The greatest barrier to patient safety and safety culture is the inherent fragmentation of the US system of care. Safety will improve when the underlying system of care improves.

As promised during his campaign, and under pressure from many quarters, President-elect Barack Obama may seek badly needed changes in the way the United States finances and delivers health care. Responding to public interest and perceived need, several previous presidents have attempted to enact some kind of national health insurance: Harry Truman in the 1940s, Richard Nixon in the 1970s, and most recently Bill Clinton in the 1990s. These attempts went nowhere. In pursuing comprehensive health care reform, President-elect Obama should be aware of four major reasons why, in the past, we heard so much talk and saw so little action.

This issue of CHP/PCOR's Quarterly Update covers news from the Fall 2007 quarter and includes articles about:

• the 2007 Eisenberg Legacy Lecture event, featuring CHP/PCOR core faculty member Victor R. Fuchs;
• annual meeting and conference coverage, including the Society for Medical Decision Meeting's Annual Meeting, and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies conference;
• two Research in Brief selections -- one highlights differences in gender use care in the VA system, and the second examines health risk assessment tools;
• how the Geriatrics Research team at the VA is using informatics to improve quality of health care;
• international health features from the field and from a research perspective;
• a Q & A with senior scholar Dena M. Bravata, who led a popular pedometer that received lots of media attention in past months.

The newsletter also contains various other news items that may be of interest to our readers.

Note to the reader:

The newsletter is fully-navigational. Any text that is surrounded by a dashed box is clickable and will allow the reader to navigate the newsletter more efficiently. The end of each article contains a special symbol (§) that, when clicked, will take the reader back to the table of contents. Please feel free to contact Amber Hsiao with any questions.

Abstract

The authors examined how the association between quality improvement (QI) implementation in hospitals and hospital clinical quality is moderated by hospital organizational and environmental context. The authors used Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis of 1,784 community hospitals to model seven quality indicators as a function of four measures of QI implementation and a variety of control variables. They found that forces that are external and internal to the hospital condition the impact of particular QI activities on quality indicators: specifically data use, statistical tool use, and organizational emphasis on Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). Results supported the proposition that QI implementation is unlikely to improve quality of care in hospital settings without a commensurate fit with the financial, strategic, and market imperatives faced by the hospital.