Perceived Patient Safety Competencies Among Anesthesia Technology Students in Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Study

Technical Summary: Perceived Patient Safety Competencies Among Anesthesia Technology Students in Jordan

Problem Statement
Patient safety is a critical component of high-quality healthcare, yet the integration of patient safety education into health professional training remains challenging, particularly in high-risk specialties like anesthesia. While global guidelines (e.g., WHO) emphasize the necessity of patient safety curricula, evidence regarding the perceived readiness of allied health students in Jordan is limited. Specifically, there is a lack of data on how anesthesia technology students—key personnel in perioperative care—perceive their own competencies in teamwork, communication, risk management, and error reporting. Furthermore, the "hidden curriculum" and gaps between theoretical instruction and clinical practice may undermine formal education, potentially leaving graduates unprepared for real-world safety challenges.

Methodology
This study employed a cross-sectional survey design to assess self-perceived patient safety competencies among undergraduate anesthesia technology students in Jordan.

• Participants: The study included 213 participants (mean age 21.74 ± 3.18 years; 77.5% female) from one public and one private university offering bachelor's degrees in anesthesia technology. The sample comprised current students (from 2nd to 6th year) and recent graduates.
• Instrument: Data were collected using the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS), a validated tool assessing six domains: teamwork, communication, risk management, human and environmental factors, recognition and response to adverse events, and safety culture. The survey was administered in English, the language of instruction, without translation.
• Procedure: A census-based convenience sampling approach was used. An online questionnaire was distributed via institutional channels, yielding a 71.0% response rate.
• Analysis: Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics and scores. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to identify mean differences in H-PEPSS scores based on demographic variables (gender, university type) and educational factors (formal training, prior courses). Statistical significance was set at p < .05.

Key Results

• Overall Competence: Participants demonstrated moderate self-perceived patient safety competencies, with an overall mean H-PEPSS score of 3.46 ± 0.76 (on a 5-point scale).
• Classroom vs. Clinical: A consistent gap was observed between theoretical and practical learning. Classroom scores (3.57 ± 0.84) were significantly higher than clinical practice scores (3.41 ± 0.83).
• Domain Performance:
  • Highest Rated: Clinical safety received the highest ratings in both settings (Classroom: 3.83; Clinical: 3.66).
  • Lowest Rated: The lowest scores were found in "Current Views (Errors & Systems)" (2.93 ± 0.64), indicating weak perceptions regarding error reporting and healthcare systems. In clinical practice, teamwork and risk management were the lowest-rated domains (both 3.28).
• Group Differences:
  • University Type: Students from private universities reported significantly higher scores in overall clinical competence, clinical safety, clinical risk management, and clinical safety culture compared to public university students. No significant differences were found in classroom instruction scores.
  • Formal Training: Students who received formal patient safety training scored significantly higher across multiple domains, including overall H-PEPSS scores, teamwork, communication, and risk management (p < .05).
  • Prior Courses: Students who had completed a previous quality-of-care course reported lower classroom communication scores but significantly more positive views on error reporting and systems thinking compared to those without such courses.
  • Gender: No statistically significant differences were found between male and female participants.
• Reliability: The H-PEPSS scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency in this sample (Cronbach's α = 0.98 for the total scale; subscales ranged from 0.81 to 0.96).

Significance and Claims
The study claims to be the first published research in Jordan specifically examining patient safety competencies among anesthesia technology students. Its primary significance lies in identifying specific educational gaps that can inform curriculum enhancement.

The authors conclude that while anesthesia technology students in Jordan possess moderate self-perceived safety competencies, there is a distinct disparity between their confidence in classroom-based learning and their perceived readiness in clinical settings. The low scores in error reporting, systems thinking, and teamwork suggest that students may still view safety through an individual-blame lens rather than a systems-based perspective.

The paper argues that formal, structured patient safety education is essential, as it is associated with significantly higher competency scores. The findings support the need for:

1. Curriculum Integration: Moving beyond incidental teaching to explicit, longitudinal integration of patient safety topics.
2. Clinical Application: Bridging the gap between theory and practice through simulation-based learning and structured clinical supervision.
3. Cultural Shift: Strengthening the "just culture" and non-punitive reporting systems within clinical training environments to improve students' views on error reporting and systems thinking.

The authors maintain a modest tone, acknowledging that the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences and that self-reported data may not perfectly reflect actual performance. They emphasize that the observed differences between university types likely reflect unmeasured institutional or clinical placement factors rather than the university type itself.