Descriptive correlational study assesses nursing error and personality types in health promotion, suggesting implications for care quality.
BACKGROUND: Just culture (JC) is a rational approach to human error and fallibility in health system promotion. It seems that it has a close relationship with personality. This study aimed to assess the relationships among nursing error, JC, and personality types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive-correlational study was conducted from October until December 2023. A random sample of 230 nurses and nursing aides was selected. The participants completed the JC Assessment Tool, Rathus Personality Questionnaire, and a demographic questionnaire through the self-report method. The data were analyzed via SPSS software version 21.0 (IBM), Chi-square tests, independent-sample t -test s, and multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: One-third of the participants (33.9%) reported a history of nursing error. The frequency of nursing errors among participants with type A personalities was significantly greater than that among their counterparts with type B personalities (53.2% vs. 46.8%; P = 0.036). The mean scores of the openness of communication subscale and the continuous improvement subscale of the JC among participants with no history of nursing error were significantly greater than those among participants with a history of nursing error ( P < 0.05). The total mean JC score of participants without a history of nursing error was also greater than that of those with a history of nursing error, and the difference was nearly significant ( P = 0.052). The participants’ demographic characteristics, personality type, and history of nursing error did not significantly predict JC ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of nursing error among individuals with type A personalities is greater than among those with type B personalities. Understanding the effects of personality traits and Enhancing care quality and health promotion in healthcare settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akbari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: