Purpose: To validate the Swedish Safety Attitudes Questionnaire–operating room (SAQ-OR) version by re-evaluating its psychometric properties for the surgical team.

Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

Methods: 541 surgical team members including perioperative nurses, physicians, and licensed practical nurses at three Swedish hospitals were included.

Findings: For the total sample, the Cronbach’s a for the six factors ranged from 0.51 to 0.76. Goodness-of-fit analyses indicated that the six-factor model was acceptable and the factor loadings were statistically significant. The test of the hypothesized relationships among the factors showed a correlation from 0.936 to 0.042.

Conclusions: The refined Swedish version of the SAQ-OR is a reasonably reliable and acceptably valid instrument for the measurement of patient safety climate in the surgical team. However, the results related to the different analyses varied among the different professionals and further research, using larger samples, is needed to explore these differences, especially among the physicians.

Background: A positive patient safety climate within teams has been associated with higher safety performance. The aim of this study was to describe and compare attitudes to patient safety among the various professionals in surgical teams in Swedish operating room (OR) departments. A further aim was to study nurse managers in the OR and medical directors’ estimations of their staffs’ attitudes to patient safety.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey with the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to elicit estimations from surgical teams. To evoke estimations from nurse managers and medical directors about staff attitudes to patient safety, a short questionnaire, based on SAQ, was used. Three OR departments at three different hospitals in Sweden participated. All licensed practical nurses (n=124), perioperative nurses (n=233), physicians (n=184) and their respective manager (n=22) were invited to participate.

Results: Mean percentage positive scores for the six SAQ factors and the three professional groups varied, and most factors (safety climate, teamwork climate, stress recognition, working conditions and perceptions of management), except job satisfaction, were below 60%. Significantly lower mean values were found for perioperative nurses compared with physicians for perceptions of management (56.4 vs 61.4, p=0.013) and working conditions (63.7 vs 69.8, p=0.007). Nurse managers and medical directors’ estimations of their staffs’ ratings of the safety climate cohered fairly well.

Conclusions: This study shows variations and some weak areas for patient safety climate in the studied ORs as reported by front-line staff and acknowledged by nurse managers and medical directors. This finding is a concern because a weak patient safety climate has been associated with poor patient outcomes. To raise awareness, managers need to support patient safety work in the OR.