A National Study of Patient Safety Culture and Patient Safety Goal in Chinese Hospitals.

"The authors disclose no conflict of interest."

"In addition, we found that the overall average positive response rate (96.11%) for the POPSG survey was high, consistent with similar research conducted in the Taiwan region. Among these, G1 Identify patients correctly, and G12 Improve clinic critical value managing had the highest positive response rate. Identification plays a dominant role in patient safety and has been recognized as the root cause of sentinel events. Institutions and managers have seen the dual benefits of patient safety and economic profit of identification correctly, and in addition, with the development of technologies, emerging creative patient identifiers such as wristbands, barcode, radio frequency identification (RFID) chips, and even fingerprints have been developed and applied in the clinical setting. Clinic critical value refers to the results/value that represent a pathophysiological state at such variance with normal (expected values) as to be life-threatening unless something is done promptly and for which some corrective action could be taken, which was first proposed by Lundberg at JAMA in 1990, who believed that first aid should be provided when critical value shows. Such beliefs are valued by the medical field and adopted in the standard report system by the JCI. China introduced this belief in early 2000 and set the reporting of the clinical critical value as a compulsory item in hospital accreditation in 2011. Therefore, empowered by technology, supported by the institution and required by the government, these 2 goals have the highest positive response rates; however, as mentioned previously, the participants reported that the goal of improving burnout and stress was practiced less in clinical settings compared with other goals. This study was funded by the China National Health Commission (approval number: 2021-HLYJ-004) and Chongqing Education Commission (approval number: yjg211006). However, the funders had no role in the study design, data collection, management, analysis, interpretation, manuscript writing, or decision to submit the report for publication."