Skip to main content
Download PDF

Assessing unsafe behaviors and their relationship with work-related factors among EMS staff in Iran: a cross-sectional study

BMC Emergency Medicine volume 24, Article number: 70 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff often encounter various safety incidents. Work-related factors can lead to unsafe behaviors and safety incidents. This study assessed unsafe behaviors and their relationship with work-related factors among EMS staff.

Methods

This descriptive-correlational study used census sampling method to select 284 EMS staff in Ardabil Province, northwest of Iran, from April to June 2023. The data collection tools were demographic and occupational information form, Mearns Unsafe Behavior Scale, Cohen Perceived Stress Scale, Michielsen Fatigue Scale, and Patterson Teamwork Scale. The data were analyzed using the SPSSv-16, descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multiple linear regression.

Results

The mean of unsafe behavior, fatigue, perceived stress, non-conflict of teamwork, and conflict of teamwork were 15.80 (± 4.77), 20.57 (± 6.20), 16.10 (± 6.13), 117.89 (± 17.24), and 40.60 (± 9.59), respectively. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that “partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM),” “physical fatigue,” “age,” “type of shift,” “employment status,” and “overtime hours per month” were predictors of general unsafe behavior (P < 0.001) and “mild task conflict (MTC),” “employment status,” “partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM)” were predictors of unsafe behavior under incentives EMS staff (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The present study showed that some work-related factors were predictors of unsafe behaviors. The negative consequences of unsafe behaviors should be considered, and long-term planning should be done to reduce them. Developing specific guidelines for addressing unsafe behaviors, implementing measures to reduce fatigue, managing overtime hours in the workplace, and Establishing a system where novice staff work with experienced staff during their first year can be beneficial in reducing these behaviors among EMS staff.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

One of the main parts of healthcare provider organizations is emergency medical services (EMS), which significantly contributes to reducing out-of-hospital deaths and is one of the leading and well-known fields in medical assistance programs today [1, 2]. The conditions of the EMS work environment are very complex and challenging [3]. EMS staff provide services to patients with critical conditions and in complex situations and often encounter various safety incidents while performing their duties [4, 5].

Most safety incidents are attributed to unsafe behaviors, such as failure to follow instructions [6]. Unsafe behaviors can result in fatal injuries primarily caused by ambulance vehicle accidents and non-fatal injuries caused by physical exertion (lifting, carrying, or transferring patients and equipment), exposure to hazardous substances (body fluids and chemicals), and falls [7,8,9]. A study conducted on emergency medical personnel in Iran found that personal health behaviors were reported to be very good (86.5%) [10]. One study found significant positive interrelationships between work-related factors, unsafe behavior, and safety incident involvement among EMS crew members [11]. Another study reported that a high percentage of EMS personnel displayed potentially safety-compromising behaviors while providing patient care [12]. A survey of healthcare staff emphasized the importance of adhering to safe behaviors and following instructions for use [13].

Studies have shown that various factors contribute to unsafe behaviors, and it is necessary to investigate and recognize the influencing factors to prevent and reduce these behaviors effectively [14, 15]. In the case of EMS staff, their unique workplace, which often involves tending to injured and critically ill patients in need of high-quality healthcare, exposes them to elevated stress levels [16] and fatigue [17].

Stressors like workload pressure can related to unsafe behaviors, reduce safety rule compliance, and cause occupational injuries [18]. In recent decades, stress has emerged as a significant public health concern, with its adverse effects among healthcare workers [19,20,21]. Stress is often associated with losing control over one’s circumstances and leads to changes in physical, psychological, and emotional structures [20, 22]. An increase in safety incidents and unsafe behaviors has been attributed to the fatigue of EMS staff [12, 23]. Fatigue can be effective in causing or aggravating diseases [24] and significantly hampers an individual’s ability to function effectively and safely [25]. Studies have indicated that reducing fatigue can considerably improve patient and staff safety [23, 26, 27]. Stress and fatigue can influence behavioral performance and teamwork for various reasons [22, 28, 29].

Effective communication between team members and teamwork is effective in achieving a common objective and is significantly associated with lower occurrences of adverse events [30]. In Iran, medical emergency teams have two technicians in each ambulance and usually work 24-hour shifts. With strong and sufficient teamwork, these technicians can make timely decisions in high-casualty missions and busy environments, perform effectively, and provide quality care [31]. Studies have also emphasized the importance of teamwork in enhancing safety and the quality of healthcare services [18, 32].

Unsafe behaviors adversely influence staff and patient safety. It also imposes a substantial economic burden on the healthcare system and society [33, 34]. According to the studies, assessing the relationship between unsafe behaviors of EMS staff and work-related factors such as stress, fatigue, and teamwork is very important [11, 17, 18, 35]. Despite some previous investigations, research on unsafe behaviors and their influencing work-related factors is limited in Iran. As a result, this study assessed unsafe behaviors and their relationship with work-related factors among EMS staff.

Methods

Study design

The population for this descriptive-correlational study included the EMS staff in Ardabil province, northwest of Iran, from April to June 2023. The census sampling method was used, and the inclusion criteria included having at least six months of work experience in EMS. Administrative staff and those with incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the study. The EMS in Ardabil has 25 urban bases and 35 roadside bases. Researchers obtained a permit from the University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee and a recommendation letter from the Vice Chancellor for Research before starting the study. They presented this letter to officials at EMS centers. Then, they visited all EMS centers in Ardabil province. Before sampling, they explained the study’s design and purpose to the participants. The participants were assured that their identities would remain anonymous and all information provided would be kept confidential. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before distributing the paper version of the questionnaire. Of the 338 EMS staff who met the inclusion criteria, 24 did not consent to participate in the study, 21 questionnaires were not returned, and nine questionnaires were incomplete. Finally, 284 EMS staff were included in the study by completing a questionnaire.

Data collection tools

Five self-report scales, including the demographic and occupational information form, Mearns Unsafe Behavior Scale, Cohen Perceived Stress Scale, Michielsen Fatigue Scale, and Patterson Teamwork Scale, were adopted for assessment purposes in this study.

Demographic and occupational information form

Demographic and occupational information form included age, marital status, employment status, work experience, workplace, educational levels, number of missions in 24 h, type of shift, and overtime hours per month.

Unsafe behavior questionnaire

Unsafe behavior was based on the unsafe behavior scale [36]. Sedlar first used this questionnaire for EMS staff, measuring the extent of safety-compromising behavior due to breaking the rules and using shortcuts. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.91 [11]. It consists of an 11-item scale where the negatively worded statements related to general unsafe behavior (eight items, e.g., ‘I ignore safety regulations to get the job done’) and unsafe behavior under incentives (three items, e.g., ‘I am under pressure from my workmates to break rules’) are answered on a 5-point scale (from 1 = never to 5 = always). Higher scores represent more frequent unsafe behaviors. After obtaining permission from the original developer, two translators independently translated an English version of this questionnaire into Persian. To determine the content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR), the questionnaire was provided to 12 faculty members at Ardabil University of Medical Sciences. The content validity index was assessed separately by experts for each question using three criteria: simplicity, appropriateness, and certainty, based on a four-part spectrum (for example, in terms of simplicity, quite simple, somewhat complex, and complex). After considering all factors, the content validity index was 0.88, indicating a high validity level. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated and found to be 0.83, confirming the reliability of the questionnaire.

Perceived stress questionnaire

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was developed by Cohen et al. within three 4, 10, and 14-item versions to measure perceived stress [37]. The PSS-10 possesses adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.67 to 0.91 [38,39,40]. This questionnaire is scored based on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never, 4 = always). In this research, a 10-item version was used, and items 4, 5, 7, and 8 were scored reversely. The overall score ranged from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived stress. The present study obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82, indicating good internal consistency.

Fatigue questionnaire

The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) was developed by Michielsen et al. with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.83 [41]. This tool consists of 10 items assessing perceived physical and mental fatigue, with a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 = “never” to 5 = “always”. Higher scores show higher levels of fatigue. Except for questions 4 (I have enough energy for everyday life) and 10 (I can focus very well when I am busy doing), which represent positive issues, the remaining eight questions out of 10 were related to negative points. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80.

Teamwork questionnaire

This questionnaire was designed by Patterson et al. with a Cronbach’s alpha of over 0.70 [42]. It comprises 45 items, including nine sub-scales in two conflict (confronting teamwork) and non-conflict (interest in teamwork) groups. The non-conflict sub-scale had 33 items in five sub-sets: team orientation (TO), team structure and leadership (TSL), partner communication, team support and monitoring (PCTSM), partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM), and partner adaptability and backup behavior (PABUB). The Conflict Scale had 12 items in four sub-sets, including Process Conflict (PC), Strong Task Conflict (STC), Mild Task Conflict (MTC), and Interpersonal Conflict (IC). The responses are rated on a 5-point scale (Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Slightly Agree, Agree). The non-conflict sub-scale is scored from 0 (disagree) to 4 (agree), and the conflict sub-scale is scored in reverse (0 = agree, 4 = disagree) to reflect the positive nature of reducing conflict. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at 0.86.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed using Social Science Statistical Package (SPSS) version 16. Descriptive analysis was used to describe the characteristics of the samples. Pearson correlation was used to investigate the relationship between unsafe behaviors, perceived stress, fatigue, and teamwork of EMS staff. The predictive factors of general unsafe behavior and unsafe behavior under incentives from EMS staff were identified via multiple linear regression analysis.

Results

The overall response rate of the study was 84% (284). Among the study participants, 56.3% were under 30, and 57.0% were married. Most of the participants (51.1%) were employed. It was found that 63.0% had less than five years of work experience. 66.5% of the participants worked in urban areas, and 63% had at least some college education. Additionally, 43.7% of participants had less than five missions in 24 h. 48.6% had a 12-hour shift in one day, and 53.5% had overtime work between 80 and 120 h during the last working month (Table 1).

Table 1 General characteristics of Emergency Medical Services staff (n = 284)
Full size table

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and the relationship among unsafe behavior, subgroups of fatigue, perceived stress, and subgroups of teamwork among EMS staff. The mean and standard deviation (SD) for unsafe behavior, fatigue, and perceived stress were 15.80 (4.77), 20.57 (6.20), and 16.10 (6.13), respectively. Also, the mean and standard deviation in teamwork for two groups of conflict (confronting teamwork) and non-conflict (interest in teamwork) were 40.60 (9.59) and 117.89 (17.24).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables (N = 284)
Full size table

Unsafe behavior had a positive correlation with physical fatigue (r = 0.295, p < 0.001), mental fatigue (r = 0.250, p < 0.001), perceived stress (r = 0.189, p < 0.001), and partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM) (r = 0.312, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the unsafe behavior had a negative correlation with team structure and leadership (TSL) (r = -0.196, p = 0.001), partner communication, team support, and monitoring (PCTSM) (r = -0.185, p = 0.002), partner adaptability and backup behavior (PABUB) (r = -0.245, p < 0.001), process conflict (PC) (r = -0.225, p < 0.001), and interpersonal conflict (IC) (r = -0.226, p < 0.001).

The results of the linear regression analysis for general unsafe behavior and unsafe behavior under incentives of EMS staff based on independent and demographic variables are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Linear regression analysis of general unsafe behavior and unsafe behavior under incentives
Full size table

The results showed that variables of physical fatigue (p = 0.022), the partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM) (p = 0.001), age (p = 0.024), and employment status (p = 0.030), type of shift (p = 0.028), and overtime hours per month (p = 0.036) were significant predictors of general unsafe behavior, the partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM) (p = 0.019), the mild task conflict (MTC) (p = 0.001), and employment status (p = 0.009) were significant predictors of unsafe behavior under incentives.

Discussion

Unsafe behaviors among EMS staff are considered significant and critical social issues. They can adversely affect patients and staff, potentially impeding healthcare service delivery. This study aimed to assess the status of unsafe behaviors and their relationship with work-related factors among EMS staff.

The study results showed that the average score of unsafe behaviors of EMS staff is 15.80 (± 4.77). Unsafe behaviors of the participants were mainly related to general unsafe behaviors (ignoring safety regulations, breaking work procedures, taking chances, bending the rules, ignoring some rules, stopping working to the rules due to workplace conditions, and carrying out forbidden activities). It was also found that the participants were less inclined to engage in unsafe behaviors under incentives (breaking the rules due to incentives, breaking the rules due to management pressure, breaking the rules due to coworker provocation). In a study conducted by Sedlar with Slovakian emergency medical personnel, it was found that their average score of unsafe behaviors was higher compared to the results of our study [11]. This suggests that there are various factors that may influence the score of unsafe behaviors, such as the cultural differences between countries and the individual differences of emergency medical workers that can affect their decision-making and behavior [11, 43]. Other similar studies [5, 26, 35] showed that whatever employees report more unsafe behaviors, safety incidents will be more frequent in that profession. This indicates that compliance with the rules, work procedures, and safety regulations is appropriate to prevent the risk of harming the health of oneself, coworkers, or patients. Some EMS conditions, such as saving patients’ lives, unfortunately, lead to haste and unsafe behaviors of the staff. Therefore, adopting a more rational and cautious approach to follow the rules is recommended.

This study also identified partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM) as predictors of general unsafe behavior and unsafe behavior under incentives among EMS staff. It was found that an increase in PTSMM is associated with a decrease in unsafe behaviors, indicating its significance in promoting a safer work environment among EMS staff. This result is consistent with previous studies [35, 44], which have shown that teamwork is a practical approach to improve the treatment process and reduce errors. EMS managers can prioritize initiatives to strengthen partner trust and shared mental models within the EMS setting.

Mild task conflict was one of the predictors of unsafe behavior under incentives. The findings of the Glawing et al. study showed that promoting cooperation is essential to ensuring high-quality and safe care [18]. Khoshab et al. study also showed that teamwork is related to the team’s work factors, and the personality characteristics of the members will have the most significant impact on the team’s behavioral achievements [28]. According to similar studies, the presence of competent colleagues, fostering cooperation in the team, can significantly improve the care provided and increase safety. It is also significantly associated with lower occurrences of adverse events [30, 32]. EMS managers can improve staff EMS’ teamwork competency by considering multiple educational strategies, including clarifying roles and responsibilities, managing conflict, and structured teamwork training.

Based on the results of this study, physical fatigue, the type of shift, and overtime hours were predictors of general unsafe behaviors. Participants who reported 24-hour shifts had more general unsafe behaviors. This result was consistent with Donnelly et al. study, which showed that paramedics with higher fatigue levels had more safety-compromising behaviors [17]. Previous research is also consistent with the present study and shows that fatigue caused by shift work and long hours is a risk to safety in health care [23, 26, 45]. The results of Weaver et al. showed that extended weekly work hours were unrelated to EMS worker fatigue [46]. According to these results, with low fatigue levels, EMS staff may be more focused on their tasks and less engaged in unsafe behaviors. Managers and health organizations should pay attention to their personnel’s physical and mental health and implement measures to reduce fatigue and increase safety in the workplace.

Another predictor of general unsafe behaviors was the age of the participants; younger staff showed less desire to perform safe behaviors than older staff. In a similar study, younger paramedics reported more safety-compromising behaviors than older paramedics [17]. In another study, changes in safety culture scores were not affected by age, which could be related to the culture, gender, or work experience of personnel [45]. This result may be explained by the older staff’s higher experience, job security, and work stability, which reduces their risk-taking tendency and increases their obedience to safety rules and procedures.

Employment status was also significantly related to general unsafe behavior and unsafe behavior under incentives. The staff with a Commitment status reported higher rates of unsafe behaviors, consistent with the results of Kosydar et al. study [45]. It seems that staff with an employed status can control themselves in different situations and have better performance and less unsafe behaviors. It is recommended to use the experience and professional levels of EMS staff to reduce unsafe behaviors.

Limitations

This study can be the basis for further research regarding unsafe behaviors in Iran’s healthcare setting. The study involved EMS staff from all urban and roadside bases, which makes the results helpful in policy-making in Ardabil province. However, the present study had some limitations. First, the findings are from a selected geographical location in Ardabil, Iran. Therefore, our results should be generalized with caution. Second, the present study measured variables using only self-reported questionnaires, which, in turn, can expose the results to bias. Third, the study was conducted using cross-sectional method. Longitudinal studies can provide more information in the future.

Conclusion

The present study showed that “partner trust and shared mental models (PTSMM),” “mild task conflict (MTC),” “physical fatigue,” “type of shift,” “overtime hours per month,” “age,” and “employment status,” were predictors of unsafe behaviors. Extended programs should be considered due to the negative consequences of unsafe behaviors. Developing specific guidelines for addressing unsafe behaviors and reducing these behaviors among EMS staff can be beneficial. EMS managers should pay attention to overtime hours in the workplace and implement measures to reduce staff fatigue. They can improve teamwork by considering multiple educational strategies, including clarifying roles and responsibilities. Establishing a system where novice staff work with experienced staff during their first year can enhance safety, reduce unsafe behaviors, and foster trust and shared mental models among team members.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Aringhieri R, Bruni ME, Khodaparasti S, van Essen JT. Emergency medical services and beyond: addressing new challenges through a wide literature review. Comput Oper Res. 2017;78:349–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Torabi M, Borhani F, Abbaszadeh A, Atashzadeh-Shoorideh F. Experiences of pre-hospital emergency medical personnel in ethical decision-making: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hagiwara MA, Magnusson C, Herlitz J, Seffel E, Axelsson C, Munters M, Strömsöe A, Nilsson L. Adverse events in prehospital emergency care: a trigger tool study. BMC Emerg Med. 2019;19:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sahebi A, Golitaleb M, Moayedi S, Torres M, Sheikhbardsiri H. Prevalence of workplace violence against health care workers in hospital and pre-hospital settings: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Front Public Health. 2022;10:895818.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Venesoja A, Lindström V, Castrén M, Tella S. Prehospital nursing students’ experiences of patient safety culture in emergency medical services—A qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(5–6):847–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zahiri Harsini A, Ghofranipour F, Sanaeinasab H, Amin Shokravi F, Bohle P, Matthews LR. Factors associated with unsafe work behaviours in an Iranian petrochemical company: perspectives of workers, supervisors, and safety managers. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarbaz M, Baigi SFM, Darroudi A, Kimiafar K. Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids among prehospital emergency medical services workers in Mashhad, Northeast of Iran. Am J Infect Control 2023.

  8. Reichard AA, Marsh SM, Tonozzi TR, Konda S, Gormley MA. Occupational injuries and exposures among emergency medical services workers. Prehospital Emerg care. 2017;21(4):420–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hadian M, Jabbari A, Sheikhbardsiri H. Workplace violence and influencing factors among paramedic pre hospital paramedic personnel (city and road) in Iran: a quality content analysis. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pourhoseinzadeh M, Gheibizadeh M, Moradikalboland M. The relationship between health locus of control and health behaviors in emergency medicine personnel. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2017;5(4):397.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sedlár M. Work-related factors, cognitive skills, unsafe behavior and safety incident involvement among emergency medical services crew members: relationships and indirect effects. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(2):1281–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baier N, Roth K, Felgner S, Henschke C. Burnout and safety outcomes-a cross-sectional nationwide survey of EMS-workers in Germany. BMC Emerg Med. 2018;18(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jadidi E, Borgheipour H, Mohammadfam I. The effect of behavior–based Safety interventions on the reduction of unsafe behavior. Archives Occup Health 2019.

  14. Es’ haghi M, Nikravesh A, Fereydoni M-J, Shabani N. Understanding factors influencing workers’ unsafe behaviors through social network analysis in the mining industry. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(2):863–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yuxin W, Gui F, Qian L, Xiao L, Yiran C, Yali W, Xuecai X. Modelling and analysis of unsafe acts in coal mine gas explosion accidents based on network theory. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2023;170:28–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Afshari A, Borzou SR, Shamsaei F, Mohammadi E, Tapak L. Perceived occupational stressors among emergency medical service providers: a qualitative study. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Donnelly EA, Bradford P, Davis M, Hedges C, Socha D, Morassutti P, Pichika SC. What influences safety in paramedicine? Understanding the impact of stress and fatigue on safety outcomes. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020;1(4):460–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Glawing C, Karlsson I, Kylin C, Nilsson J. Work-related stress, stress reactions and coping strategies in ambulance nurses: a qualitative interview study. J Adv Nurs 2023.

  19. Ornek OK, Esin MN. Effects of a work-related stress model based mental health promotion program on job stress, stress reactions and coping profiles of women workers: a control groups study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sheikhbardsiri H, Doustmohammadi MM, Afshar PJ, Heidarijamebozorgi M, Khankeh H, Beyramijam M. Anxiety, stress and depression levels among nurses of educational hospitals in Iran: time of performing nursing care for suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients. J Educ Health Promotion 2021, 10.

  21. Tahernejad S, Ghaffari S, Ariza-Montes A, Wesemann U, Farahmandnia H, Sahebi A. Post-traumatic stress disorder in medical workers involved in earthquake response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon; 2023.

  22. Mirzaei A, Mozaffari N, Habibi Soola A. Occupational stress and its relationship with spiritual coping among emergency department nurses and emergency medical services staff. Int Emerg Nurs. 2022;62:101170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Donnelly EA, Bradford P, Davis M, Hedges C, Socha D, Morassutti P. Fatigue and safety in paramedicine. Can J Emerg Med. 2019;21(6):762–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lock A, Bonetti D, Campbell A. The psychological and physiological health effects of fatigue. Occup Med. 2018;68(8):502–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hagiwara MA, Magnusson C, Herlitz J, Seffel E, Axelsson C, Munters M, Strömsöe A, Nilsson L. Adverse events in prehospital emergency care: a trigger tool study. BMC Emerg Med. 2019;19(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barger LK, Runyon MS, Renn ML, Moore CG, Weiss PM, Condle JP, Flickinger KL, Divecha AA, Coppler PJ, Sequeira DJ. Effect of fatigue training on safety, fatigue, and sleep in emergency medical services personnel and other shift workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prehospital Emerg care. 2018;22(sup1):58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bushmaker R, Corey K, Dunn J, Lalonde T, Estrada S. Evaluation of a new helicopter crew transport fatigue assessment. Air Med J. 2019;38(3):198–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khoshab H, Nouhi E, Tirgari B, Ahmadi F. A survey on teamwork status in caring for patients with heart failure: a cross-sectional study. J Interprof Care. 2019;33(1):8–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kerai SM, Khan UR, Islam M, Asad N, Razzak J, Pasha O. Post-traumatic stress disorder and its predictors in emergency medical service personnel: a cross-sectional study from Karachi, Pakistan. BMC Emerg Med. 2017;17(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kakemam E, Hajizadeh A, Azarmi M, Zahedi H, Gholizadeh M, Roh YS. Nurses’ perception of teamwork and its relationship with the occurrence and reporting of adverse events: a questionnaire survey in teaching hospitals. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2021;29(5):1189–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bijani M, Abedi S, Karimi S, Tehranineshat B. Major challenges and barriers in clinical decision-making as perceived by emergency medical services personnel: a qualitative content analysis. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Habibi Soola A, Ajri-Khameslou M, Mirzaei A, Bahari Z. Predictors of patient safety competency among emergency nurses in Iran: a cross-sectional correlational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):547.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Stang A, Thomson D, Hartling L, Shulhan J, Nuspl M, Ali S. Safe care for pediatric patients: a scoping review across multiple health care settings. Clin Pediatr. 2018;57(1):62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bashir A, Kong V, Buitendag J, Manchev V, Bekker W, Bruce J, Laing G, Brysiewicz P, Clarke D. An analysis of adverse events and human error associated with the imaging of patients at a major trauma centre in South Africa. South Afr Med J. 2019;109(9):693–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Herzberg S, Hansen M, Schoonover A, Skarica B, McNulty J, Harrod T, Snowden JM, Lambert W, Guise J-M. Association between measured teamwork and medical errors: an observational study of prehospital care in the USA. BMJ open. 2019;9(10):e025314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Mearns K, Whitaker SM, Flin R. Safety climate, safety management practice and safety performance in offshore environments. Saf Sci. 2003;41(8):641–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 1983:385–96.

  38. Siqueira Reis R, Ferreira Hino AA. Romélio Rodriguez Añez C: perceived stress scale: reliability and validity study in Brazil. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(1):107–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Denovan A, Dagnall N, Dhingra K, Grogan S. Evaluating the perceived stress scale among UK university students: implications for stress measurement and management. Stud High Educ. 2019;44(1):120–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roberti JW, Harrington LN, Storch EA. Further psychometric support for the 10-item version of the perceived stress scale. J Coll Couns. 2006;9(2):135–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Van Heck GL. Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure: the fatigue Assessment Scale. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54(4):345–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Patterson PD, Weaver MD, Weaver SJ, Rosen MA, Todorova G, Weingart LR, Krackhardt D, Lave JR, Arnold RM, Yealy DM. Measuring teamwork and conflict among emergency medical technician personnel. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2012;16(1):98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Amini MT, Noroozi R. Relationship between self-management strategy and self-efficacy among staff of Ardabil disaster and emergency medical management centers. Health Emergencies Disasters Q. 2018;3(2):85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Han JH, Roh YS. Teamwork, psychological safety, and patient safety competency among emergency nurses. Int Emerg Nurs. 2020;51:100892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kosydar-Bochenek J, Religa D, Knap M, Czop M, Knap B, Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska W, Krupa S. Safety climate perceived by pre-hospital emergency care personnel—an international cross-sectional study. Front Public Health 2023, 11.

  46. Weaver MD, Patterson PD, Fabio A, Moore CG, Freiberg MS, Songer TJ. An observational study of shift length, crew familiarity, and occupational injury and illness in emergency medical services workers. Occup Environ Med. 2015;72(11):798–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors highly appreciate the EMS staff who participated in the study.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran

    Reza Asadi-JabehDar, Saeid Mehri & Alireza Mirzaei

  2. Department of Critical Care Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran

    Rajab Dashti-Kalantar

  3. Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran

    Aghil Habibi Soola

Authors
  1. Reza Asadi-JabehDar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajab Dashti-Kalantar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeid Mehri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alireza Mirzaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aghil Habibi Soola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: Reza Asadi-JabehDar, Aghil Habibi Soola; data collection: Reza Asadi-JabehDar; data analysis: Aghil Habibi Soola, Reza Asadi-JabehDar, Alireza Mirzaei; and manuscript preparation: Aghil Habibi Soola, Reza Asadi-JabehDar, Alireza Mirzaei, Saeid Mehri, Rajab Dashti-Kalantar. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aghil Habibi Soola.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards, approval, and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethics committee of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences approved this study (approval number: IR. ARUMS.REC.1401.253). Informed written consent was obtained from all participants before the start of this study. By completing the consent form, participants were informed about the purpose and method of the study. Participants were also informed that the researchers were committed to answering their questions and that their information was kept confidential. In addition, participants were aware that their participation in the study was voluntary and that they could leave the study at any time. All the methods in this study were carried out following the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asadi-JabehDar, R., Dashti-Kalantar, R., Mehri, S. et al. Assessing unsafe behaviors and their relationship with work-related factors among EMS staff in Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Emerg Med 24, 70 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12873-024-00980-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12873-024-00980-5

Keywords

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us