Does organisational myopia mediate the effect of occupational health and safety practices on the risk of occupational accidents in Turkish healthcare institutions?

Hasan Sadık Tatli; Kübra Sezen Erküvün; Mesut Can Türkoğlu

doi:10.2478/aiht-2024-75-3796

Figures & Tables

Conceptual model of mediation analysis. Path a represents the direct effect of the independent variable x (OHS practices) on the mediating variable m (organisational myopia). Path b represents the effect of m on the dependent variable y (occupational accidents). This effect is expressed as the coefficient obtained by testing x, y, and m in the same model. Path c indicates the total effect of x on y. Path c’ indicates the controlled effect of x on y, and is expressed as the coefficient obtained by testing x, y, and m in the same model

Mediating effect of organisational myopia between OHS practices and self-reported occupational accidents

Factor and reliability analysis of the organisational myopia scale

Rotated component matrix
Items	Components
Items	Organisation structure	Degree of routine	Individual indifference	Individual resistance
O5: My managers are not flexible.	0.744
O3: Feedback about the organisation is not evaluated.	0.732
O2: Our workplace does not provide an environment where employees can share their ideas.	0.723
O6: The rules in our organisation are strict.	0.717
O4: In our workplace, work is always done the traditional way.	0.713
O7: There is very little innovation in our organisation.	0.679
R5: I have a standard job.		0.786
R4: My work lends itself to routinisation.		0.783
R2: My work is not open to innovation.		0.671
R1: I do not have the opportunity to improve myself at work.		0.651
R3: I always solve problems at work with the same methods.		0.511
R6: My job is not suitable for rotation.		0.424
I2: I am not curious about the developments around me.			0.820
I1: I do not follow innovations related to my work.			0.750
I3: I don’t recognise my own shortcomings easily.			0.713
I4: I don’t pay attention to the criticism of others.			0.646
IR2: I can’t give up my habits easily.				0.813
IR1: When I do something, I always use the methods I have used before.				0.783
IR3: Different environmental conditions scare me.				0.576
Variance explained	18.738 %	14.869 %	13.342%	9.933 %

Factor and reliability analysis of OHS practices performance evaluation scale

Rotated component matrix
Items	Components
Items	Managerial measures	OHS awareness	Cooperation	OHS training	OHS criteria
M3: Necessary health and safety measures are implemented in my workplace.	0.753
M4: My workplace has the necessary protective health and safety equipment.	0.749
M1: Employees at my workplace are provided with the necessary protective health and safety equipment.	0.723
M2: We comply with health and safety measures at my workplace.	0.702
M6: Risk assessments are carried out at regular intervals at my workplace.	0.626
M5: Any work assignment at my workplace takes into account health and safety.	0.566
A3: My colleagues are familiar with the measures of protection from occupational diseases.		0.831
A1: My colleagues are familiar with occupational diseases and their causes.		0.806
A2: My colleagues are familiar with the legal rights and responsibilities related to their work.		0.775
A4: My colleagues are familiar with protection from health and safety risks at my workplace.		0.767
A6: My colleagues know how to use protective equipment.		0.585
C4: Information obtained by risk assessment is shared with the employees.			0.761
C2: At my workplace, employees can easily express their concerns about health and safety issues.			0.743
C3: Experts, management, and employees cooperate in regards to occupational health and safety at my workplace.			0.731
C1: Management takes into account the health and safety concerns of employees.			0.697
T3: Occupational health and safety trainings are implemented at my workplace.				0.748
T2: Training in occupational health and safety is delivered in an understandable language.				0.705
T1: Occupational health and safety training is announced to employees within a specific plan and programme.				0.696
T5: If my workplace gets a new tool or equipment, training is provided on how to use it correctly.				0.576
T4: Training in occupational health and safety includes practical demonstration.				0.569
OH4: My colleagues do not jeopardise the health and safety of other staff while doing their work.					0.791
OH3: My colleagues do not jeopardise their own health and safety while doing their work.					0.720
OH5: My colleagues follow instructions to use machines, tools, and equipment at my workplace.					0.684
OH1: When my colleagues encounter a threat to health and safety at work, they inform the management.					0.593
OH2: At work, my colleagues apply the information they have learned from occupational health and safety training.					0.579
Variance explained	16.945 %	15.636 %	14.007 %	13.952 %	13.926 %

Results of mediation analysis

Scales	R2	p	B	p	LLCI	ULCI	Hypotheses
OHS practices (x)	3.14 %	0.0003	−0.1387	0.0000	−0.2128	−0.0646	H₁ Confirmed
Organisational myopia (y)	3.14 %	0.0003	3.1729	0.0003	2.8987	3.4470	H₁ Confirmed
OHS practices (x)	6.92 %	0.0000	0.0924	0.0000	0.0597	0.1251	H₂ Rejected
Organisational myopia (m)			0.0130	0.5413	−0.0288	0.0547
Occupational accident risk (y)			1.3882	0.0000	1.2102	1.5662
OHS practices (x)	6.84 %	0.0000	0.0906	0.0000	0.0584	0.1227	H₃ Confirmed
Occupational accident risk (y)	6.84 %	0.0000	1.4294	0.0000	1.3105	1.5483	H₃ Confirmed
Path			Indirect Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	H₄ Rejected
OHS Practices → Organisational Myopia → Occupational Accident Risk			−0.0018	0.0029	−0.0091	0.0031	H₄ Rejected

Correlation analysis between participant scores on organisational myopia, OHS practices, and self-assessed risk of occupational accidents

Scales	Mean	Standard deviation	Organisational myopia	OHS practices	Occupational accident risk
Organisational myopia	2.67	0.652	1
OHS practices	3.60	0.832	−0.222^*	1
Occupational accident risk	1.76	0.288	−0.029	0.255^*	1

Demographic characteristics of participating healthcare workers in Turkey

Variables	Categories	N	%
Gender	Female	295	70.2
Gender	Male	125	29.8
Age (years)	18–25	123	29.3
	26–33	141	33.6
	34–41	81	19.3
	42–49	58	13.8
	50 and above	17	4
Education level	High school	51	12.1
	Bachelor	285	67.9
	Postgraduate	84	20
Marital status	Married	183	43.6
Marital status	Single	237	56.4
Work experience in the current workplace (years)	1 and below	119	28.3
	2–5	160	38.1
	6–9	52	12.4
	10–13	43	10.2
	14 and above	46	11
Total work experience (years)	1 and below	63	15
	2–5	136	32.4
	6–9	59	14
	10–13	48	11.4
	14 and above	114	27.1
Current position	Physician	56	13.3
	Nurse / midwife	115	27.4
	Health technician	83	19.8
	Hospital administrative staff	129	30.7
	Manager	19	4.5
	Support services staff	18	4.3
Have you had an occupational accident before?	Yes	69	16.4
Have you had an occupational accident before?	No	351	83.6
Have any of your colleagues had an occupational accident in the last year?	Yes	139	33.1
	No	281	66.9
Have you had a near-miss incident in your work environment before?	Yes	156	37.1
	No	264	62.9
Are the OHS measures at your workplace adequate?	Yes	248	59
Are the OHS measures at your workplace adequate?	No	172	41
Are the occupational safety specialist and occupational physician services sufficient in your workplace?	Yes	285	67.9
	No	135	32.1
How often do you receive OHS training?	None	8	1.9
	Once in six months	120	28.6
	Once a year	231	55
	Once in two years	19	4.5
	Once in three years	27	6.4
	Other	15	3.6

Self-assessed risk of occupational accidents by study participants (N=420)

Statements		N	%
Have you had an occupational accident before?	Yes	69	16.4
	No	351	83.6
	Total	420	100.0
Have you had an occupational accident at your current workplace?	Yes	46	11.0
	No	374	89.0
	Total	420	100.0
Have any of your colleagues had an occupational accident in the last year?	Yes	139	33.1
	No	281	66.9
	Total	420	100.0
Have you had a near-miss incident in your work environment before?	Yes	156	37.1
	No	264	62.9
	Total	420	100.0

Does organisational myopia mediate the effect of occupational health and safety practices on the risk of occupational accidents in Turkish healthcare institutions?

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Factor and reliability analysis of the organisational myopia scale

Factor and reliability analysis of OHS practices performance evaluation scale

Results of mediation analysis

Correlation analysis between participant scores on organisational myopia, OHS practices, and self-assessed risk of occupational accidents

Demographic characteristics of participating healthcare workers in Turkey

Self-assessed risk of occupational accidents by study participants (N=420)

Paradigm

My account