Sick LeaveSIOHPSNCT06398860
A Structured Method for Systematic and Integrated Occupational Safety and Health and Patient Safety Management Systems
A study testing SIOHPS and Wait-list in people with Sick Leave and Quality Of Care, run by Region Västmanland at 2 sites in Sweden.
Trial summary
The evidence unequivocally supports the association between work environment and patient safety. The negative impact of working conditions on both employee health and quality of care highlights the potential benefits of integrating these areas. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Sick Leave, Quality Of Care, Occupational Health
- What is being tested?
- SIOHPS and Wait-list
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 750 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesSweden
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2024to Apr 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Individual staff needs to work at least 50% at the workplace
- Workplace provides 24-hour care
Who cannot join
- Plan to implement another method for conduction daily work environment and/or patient safety work during the project period
- Units providing pediatric and psychiatric care
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: Effectiveness- and Cost Effectiveness of a Structured Method for Systematic and Integrated Occupational Safety and Health and Patient Safety Management Systems (SIOHPS) - A Pragmatic Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial
The evidence unequivocally supports the association between work environment and patient safety. The negative impact of working conditions on both employee health and quality of care highlights the potential benefits of integrating these areas. It is therefore suggested that integrated systematic occupational health and patient safety management are crucial in managing the challenges faced by healthcare services today.
The project aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured method for systematic and integrated occupational safety and health and patient safety management systems (SIOHPS). A process evaluation will be conducted alongside the main study to determine the intervention's specific outcomes and provide transferable guidance to a wider context. The intervention is designed to support both systematic occupational health and patient safety management systems using a Safety II-perspective. The intervention is comprised of several core components, including education to staff, support-functions and management, daily team reflections; as well as audit and feedback.
Read more
A stepped wedge cluster-controlled design (SWD) will be used, with workplaces as clusters. The SWD will consist of three steps, with four clusters crossing over from the control to the intervention group at each step. All clusters will start as controls. At least twelve healthcare units with at least thirty employees per workplace from two different regions in Sweden will participate in the intervention. Workplaces that provide round-the-clock care are invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are units with plans to implement any other occupational health and/or patient safety improvement work during the project period. At the individual level, inclusion criteria for employees include at least 50% of full-time work at the workplace.
The SIOHPS project will contribute to the existing theory on safety culture interventions by considering the integration of these areas. The goal is to contribute to a safe environment for both employees and patients.
Read the detailed description
The increasing and aging populations, changing patient needs and advances in technology present significant challenges to healthcare systems around the world. These challenges are particularly demanding in complex systems associated with high risks, such as the healthcare. In addition to the suffering experienced by patients, preventable adverse events can result in increased loading and costs to the hospitals and challenges in the healthcare work environment. Over the years, reports of poor working conditions in the healthcare sector, characterized by high workload and stress have been raised. Previous studies have shown an association between the work environment and employees´ health, as well as patient outcomes. The evidence unequivocally supports the association between the work environment and patient safety. The negative impact of working conditions on both employee health and the quality of care highlights the potential benefits of integrating these areas. Swedish occupational safety and health legislation and the Patient Safety Act require employers to provide good, safe care and to conduct risk assessments to prevent risks and injuries in the healthcare sector. Consequently, it is proposed that integrated systematic occupational health and patient safety management are crucial in managing the challenges faced by healthcare services today. However, there is a lack of research-based tools and methods to evaluate the impact of integrated systematic occupational health and patient safety management on quality and safety. Moreover, it is essential to evaluate the process of developing, implementing, and utilizing a new tool and method.
The project aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured method for systematic and integrated occupational safety and health and patient safety management systems (SIOHPS). A process evaluation will be conducted alongside the main study to determine the intervention's specific outcomes and provide transferable guidance to a wider context.
The intervention is designed to support both systematic occupational health and patient safety management systems (Safety I) including a Safety II-perspective, i.e. bringing into focus situations where safety is actually present, that is, in everyday work that usually goes well. The content of the intervention is based on the Safer Culture Framework, Swedish regulations related to the field, and current evidence of effective interventions to improve safety culture in healthcare organizations. The intervention is comprised of several core components such as targeted education, daily team reflections and support for systematic management.
First, a two hour education will be conducted for management, health care workers (HCW) involved in patient safety work, safety representatives and intervention facilitators. The education includes information on 1) occupational health and safety as well as patient safety, concepts and systematic management systems, 2) safety culture and psychological safety, 3) demonstration of the content of the intervention including the supporting digital tool and 4) case discussions. All HCW will take part of a short version of the education (approximately 30 minutes) with similar content. The education sessions will be delivered to each cluster close to intervention start. The second core component is a short daily team reflection conducted by HCW at the unit in connection to the end of work shifts. These are standardized to support identification of situations at work related to both Safety I and II perspective for both occupational health and patient safety as well as learning. The facilitator supports the HCW in the process of the daily reflections to maintain adherence and sustainability. The third component includes risk assessment, planning and implementation of appropriate measures, follow-up and feedback, based on information identified in the second component. The steps in this component targets the management and should be conducted in close collaboration with HCW involved in patient safety work and the safety representatives. Participation of HCW in this part is encouraged.
The project is guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions and is coproduced with stakeholders. A program theory guides the evaluation of intervention effectiveness. The study has a hybrid Type I design in which the primary aim is to determine effectiveness of an intervention with the secondary aim to better understand context for implementation and evaluate the process.
A stepped wedge cluster-controlled design (SWD) will be used, with units as clusters. The design is suitable in intervention studies where all clusters could benefit from the intervention. A pragmatic randomization procedure will be used upon assignment of steps for each cluster to assure an equal number of clusters and employees in each step. Consideration will be given to geographically neighboring clusters and collaboration between managers when deciding cluster allocation for each step, aiming to minimize the risk of influencing those in the other steps.
The SWD will consist of three steps, with at least four clusters crossing over from the control to the intervention group at each step. The study begins with a period where all clusters function as controls and then, in multiple steps, transition from the control group to the intervention group. The transition to each new step occurs every four months. At least twelve healthcare units with at least thirty employees per workplace from two different regions in Sweden will participate in the intervention. Workplaces that provide round-the-clock care are invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are units with plans to implement any other occupational health and/or patient safety improvement work during the project period; and units providing pediatric and psychiatric care. At the individual level, inclusion criteria for employees include at least 50% of full-time work at the workplace. All professions are included and encourage to participate in the intervention.
A power calculation has been conducted where the effect has been estimated at the employee level (intervention effect) based on the following parameters: Power 80%, p <0.05, clinically relevant change in the primary outcome is 30%, ICC = 0.01, number of "steps" = three, and an equal number of clusters switch to the intervention group at each occasion. Each cluster is assumed to consist of an average of 30 employees, which means that at least twelve clusters need to be included.
The intervention is utilized by participating units for eight months, but units in the initial steps are encouraged to continue using the intervention until the units in the last step have finished their intervention period.
The intervention effect will be evaluated using the primary outcomes sick leave and quality of care. Secondary outcomes include safety climate, work environment-related factors, employee health, performance and patient safety. Primary outcomes are monitored using registry data. Secondary outcomes are collected using questionnaires which will be sent out to all employees in each cluster and step at baseline, 4 months, and 8 months after intervention start. Primary and secondary analyses are conducted based on intention-to-treat. Complementary per-protocol analyses are carried out for both primary and secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses are considered if the data allows, for instance, based on units, perceived safety climate, gender, healthcare professions, or risk of ill health.
Different complementary data are collected for the cost-effectiveness evaluation. Direct costs for resource usage in the intervention include, for example, the time spent in each meeting and the number of participating employees, consumable materials, etc. Indirect costs include production losses due to work environment and/or health-related issues, as well as absenteeism. Cost-effectiveness is calculated using a cost-benefit analysis and cost-consequence analysis.
The design of the process evaluation is based on Medical Research Council framework and Moore et als. three core components: implementation (how delivery is achieved and what is delivered), mechanisms of impact (how the intervention creates change), and context (how context influences implementation and outcomes). To more comprehensively assess and manage factors that may affect successful implementation of interventions in various contexts, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) has been utilized. Prior to study start information will be collected on contextual factors that may have influenced the implementation process and will be assessed by telephone interviews. The data collection for the process evaluation is carried out concurrently with the implementation of the intervention project and data will be collected over the eight months. It will be assessed by documentation, observation, questionnaires and focus group interviews.
Information will be distributed to managers in the Swedish healthcare system, via contact persons such as central patient safety representatives, HR-representatives and work environment specialists. If expressed interest from these functions, continued establishment within the organization will occur through senior management to first line management. Informed consent from senior management will be collected before further contact will be established with first line managers. Information about the study and what participation entails will be sent to managers by email and followed up with information meetings or equivalent. Included units will receive additional information about the study directed towards HCW at the unit. The research group will give further information about the study at workplace meetings with the possibility for the employees to ask questions and receive additional information. The HCW will be invited to participate in the study via their e-mail addresses at work. Informed consent will be collected in conjunction with the baseline questionnaire is sent out. Participation in the study is voluntarily. All HCW are eligible to participate in the intervention regardless of whether they choose to participate in the research study or not.
- Conditions
- Sick Leave, Quality Of Care, Occupational Health, Safety Culture, Cost-effectiveness, Preventable Adverse Events
- Being tested
- SIOHPS, Wait-list
- Keywords
- Work conditions, Patient safety, Health service, Intervention research, Stakeholder Participation, Co-production, Debrief, Safety huddle, Process evaluation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SIOHPSProcedure or surgery
The intervention is comprised of several core components such as targeted education, daily team reflections and support for systematic management. First, a two hour education will be conducted for management, HCW involved in patient safety work, safety representatives and intervention facilitators. The second core component is a short daily team reflection conducted by HCW at the unit in connection to the end of work shifts. These are standardized to support identification of situations at work related to both Safety I and II perspective for both occupational health and patient safety as well as learning. The third component includes risk assessment, planning and implementation of appropriate measures, follow up and evaluation, based in information identified in the second component. The steps in this component targets the management and should be conducted in close collaboration with HCW involved in patient safety work and the safety representatives.
Wait-listProcedure or surgery
No intervention
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention-arm | Experimental | Cluster of 3-6 workplaces will start intervention at either baseline, 4 or 8 month from the start. Receives: Procedure: SIOHPS |
| Wait-list group | Experimental | Wait-listed group, will await intervention for either 4 or 8 months. Receives: Procedure: Wait-list |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Sick leave
Total number of sick leave days after intervention start. Register data.
Measured: 12 months
Quality of care
Readmission rate within 30-days of discharge. Register data.
Measured: 12 months
Secondary outcomes (12)
Job demands
Change in perceived job demands at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Consists of the domains quantitative demands, work pace and emotional demands. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Job resources
Change in perceived job resources at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Job resources includes local leadership, teamwork climate, horizontal trust, meaningful work, influence at work. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Learning environment
Change in perceived learning at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Safety climate
Change in perceived safety climate at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Includes both occupational health and safety climate as well as patient safety climate. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Work environment
Change in perception of the work environment at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Work Engagement
Change in work engagement at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Productivity loss
Change in lost productivity at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Defined as productivity loss related to work environment- and health-related problems. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Health
Change in perceived health status of the employees at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Health is measured as general health, sleep problems, stress, health- and work environment-related problems, exhaustion. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Short-term sick leave
Total number of short-term sick leave days after intervention start. Register data.
Measured: 12 months
Quality of care
Change in perceived quality of care at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Patient Safety
Change in perceived patient safety at 4 and 8 months after intervention start. Questionnaire data.
Measured: 4, 8 months
Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER): Sick leave and Quality of care
Evaluation of cost-effectiveness by using calculated costs related to intervention primary outcomes.
Measured: 4 months before first intervention enrollment to 8 months after last intervention enrollment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 May 2024
- Study start1 Jul 2024
- Primary completionApr 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionApr 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Sick LeaveStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- The study uses a stepped wedge cluster-controlled design with open cohort, where workplace acts as a cluster.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 750 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Region Västmanland
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Uppsala University, University of Gavle, Karolinska Institutet, Uppsala County Council, Sweden, Sormland County Council, Sweden
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Malin Lohela Karlsson, Region Västmanland
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06398860
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2022-00404
- Other IDs
- 2022-00404
- Acronym
- SIOHPS
- Status last verified
- Jan 2025
- First submitted
- 30 Apr 2024
- Last updated
- 4 Feb 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes
Publications
Goras C, Ersson AS, Hellman T, Bjurling-Sjoberg P, Bergstrom G, Sarkadi Kristiansson R, Lohela-Karlsson M. Process Evaluation of a Structured Method for Systematic and Integrated Occupational Safety and Health and Patient Safety Management Systems (SIOHPS): Protocol for a Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2026 Jan 27;15:e89185. doi: 10.2196/89185.
PubMed 41592318Lohela-Karlsson M, Ersson AS, Hellman T, Conden Mellgren E, Bergstrom G, Bjurling-Sjoberg P, Sarkadi Kristiansson R, Goras C. Effectiveness- and cost effectiveness of a structured method for systematic and integrated occupational safety and health and patient safety management systems (SIOHPS) - a study protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Oct 22;25(1):1391. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-13537-4.
PubMed 41126149
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Feb 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness- and Cost Effectiveness of a Structured Method for Systematic and Integrated Occupational Safety and Health and Patient Safety Management Systems (SIOHPS) - A Pragmatic Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06398860
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SIOHPS / 2022-00404
- Conditions
- Sick Leave, Quality Of Care, Occupational Health, Safety Culture, Cost-effectiveness, Preventable Adverse Events
- Keywords
- Work conditions, Patient safety, Health service, Intervention research, Stakeholder Participation, Co-production, Debrief, Safety huddle
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrolment
- 750 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Region VästmanlandUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Uppsala University, University of Gavle, Karolinska Institutet, Uppsala County Council, Sweden, Sormland County Council, Sweden
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Apr 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Apr 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 May 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The evidence unequivocally supports the association between work environment and patient safety. The negative impact of working conditions on both employee health and quality of care highlights the potential benefits of integrating these areas. It is therefore suggested that integrated systematic occupational health and patient safety management are crucial in managing the challenges faced by healthcare services today.
The project aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured method for systematic and integrated occupational safety and health and patient safety management systems (SIOHPS). A process evaluation will be conducted alongside the main study to determine the intervention's specific outcomes and provide transferable guidance to a wider context. The intervention is designed to support both systematic occupational health and patient safety management systems using a Safety II-perspective. The intervention is comprised of several core components, including education to staff, support-functions and management, daily team reflections; as well as audit and feedback.
A stepped wedge cluster-controlled design (SWD) will be used, with workplaces as clusters. The SWD will consist of three steps, with four clusters crossing over from the control to the intervention group at each step. All clusters will start as controls. At least twelve healthcare units with at least thirty employees per workplace from two different regions in Sweden will participate in the intervention. Workplaces that provide round-the-clock care are invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are units with plans to implement any other occupational health and/or patient safety improvement work during the project period. At the individual level, inclusion criteria for employees include at least 50% of full-time work at the workplace.
The SIOHPS project will contribute to the existing theory on safety culture interventions by considering the integration of these areas. The goal is to contribute to a safe environment for both employees and patients.
Detailed description
The increasing and aging populations, changing patient needs and advances in technology present significant challenges to healthcare systems around the world. These challenges are particularly demanding in complex systems associated with high risks, such as the healthcare. In addition to the suffering experienced by patients, preventable adverse events can result in increased loading and costs to the hospitals and challenges in the healthcare work environment. Over the years, reports of poor working conditions in the healthcare sector, characterized by high workload and stress have been raised. Previous studies have shown an association between the work environment and employees´ health, as well as patient outcomes. The evidence unequivocally supports the association between the work environment and patient safety. The negative impact of working conditions on both employee health and the quality of care highlights the potential benefits of integrating these areas. Swedish occupational safety and health legislation and the Patient Safety Act require employers to provide good, safe care and to conduct risk assessments to prevent risks and injuries in the healthcare sector. Consequently, it is proposed that integrated systematic occupational health and patient safety management are crucial in managing the challenges faced by healthcare services today. However, there is a lack of research-based tools and methods to evaluate the impact of integrated systematic occupational health and patient safety management on quality and safety. Moreover, it is essential to evaluate the process of developing, implementing, and utilizing a new tool and method.
The project aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured method for systematic and integrated occupational safety and health and patient safety management systems (SIOHPS). A process evaluation will be conducted alongside the main study to determine the intervention's specific outcomes and provide transferable guidance to a wider context.
The intervention is designed to support both systematic occupational health and patient safety management systems (Safety I) including a Safety II-perspective, i.e. bringing into focus situations where safety is actually present, that is, in everyday work that usually goes well. The content of the intervention is based on the Safer Culture Framework, Swedish regulations related to the field, and current evidence of effective interventions to improve safety culture in healthcare organizations. The intervention is comprised of several core components such as targeted education, daily team reflections and support for systematic management.
First, a two hour education will be conducted for management, health care workers (HCW) involved in patient safety work, safety representatives and intervention facilitators. The education includes information on 1) occupational health and safety as well as patient safety, concepts and systematic management systems, 2) safety culture and psychological safety, 3) demonstration of the content of the intervention including the supporting digital tool and 4) case discussions. All HCW will take part of a short version of the education (approximately 30 minutes) with similar content. The education sessions will be delivered to each cluster close to intervention start. The second core component is a short daily team reflection conducted by HCW at the unit in connection to the end of work shifts. These are standardized to support identification of situations at work related to both Safety I and II perspective for both occupational health and patient safety as well as learning. The facilitator supports the HCW in the process of the daily reflections to maintain adherence and sustainability. The third component includes risk assessment, planning and implementation of appropriate measures, follow-up and feedback, based on information identified in the second component. The steps in this component targets the management and should be conducted in close collaboration with HCW involved in patient safety work and the safety representatives. Participation of HCW in this part is encouraged.
The project is guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions and is coproduced with stakeholders. A program theory guides the evaluation of intervention effectiveness. The study has a hybrid Type I design in which the primary aim is to determine effectiveness of an intervention with the secondary aim to better understand context for implementation and evaluate the process.
A stepped wedge cluster-controlled design (SWD) will be used, with units as clusters. The design is suitable in intervention studies where all clusters could benefit from the intervention. A pragmatic randomization procedure will be used upon assignment of steps for each cluster to assure an equal number of clusters and employees in each step. Consideration will be given to geographically neighboring clusters and collaboration between managers when deciding cluster allocation for each step, aiming to minimize the risk of influencing those in the other steps.
The SWD will consist of three steps, with at least four clusters crossing over from the control to the intervention group at each step. The study begins with a period where all clusters function as controls and then, in multiple steps, transition from the control group to the intervention group. The transition to each new step occurs every four months. At least twelve healthcare units with at least thirty employees per workplace from two different regions in Sweden will participate in the intervention. Workplaces that provide round-the-clock care are invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are units with plans to implement any other occupational health and/or patient safety improvement work during the project period; and units providing pediatric and psychiatric care. At the individual level, inclusion criteria for employees include at least 50% of full-time work at the workplace. All professions are included and encourage to participate in the intervention.
A power calculation has been conducted where the effect has been estimated at the employee level (intervention effect) based on the following parameters: Power 80%, p <0.05, clinically relevant change in the primary outcome is 30%, ICC = 0.01, number of "steps" = three, and an equal number of clusters switch to the intervention group at each occasion. Each cluster is assumed to consist of an average of 30 employees, which means that at least twelve clusters need to be included.
The intervention is utilized by participating units for eight months, but units in the initial steps are encouraged to continue using the intervention until the units in the last step have finished their intervention period.
The intervention effect will be evaluated using the primary outcomes sick leave and quality of care. Secondary outcomes include safety climate, work environment-related factors, employee health, performance and patient safety. Primary outcomes are monitored using registry data. Secondary outcomes are collected using questionnaires which will be sent out to all employees in each cluster and step at baseline, 4 months, and 8 months after intervention start. Primary and secondary analyses are conducted based on intention-to-treat. Complementary per-protocol analyses are carried out for both primary and secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses are considered if the data allows, for instance, based on units, perceived safety climate, gender, healthcare professions, or risk of ill health.
Different complementary data are collected for the cost-effectiveness evaluation. Direct costs for resource usage in the intervention include, for example, the time spent in each meeting and the number of participating employees, consumable materials, etc. Indirect costs include production losses due to work environment and/or health-related issues, as well as absenteeism. Cost-effectiveness is calculated using a cost-benefit analysis and cost-consequence analysis.
The design of the process evaluation is based on Medical Research Council framework and Moore et als. three core components: implementation (how delivery is achieved and what is delivered), mechanisms of impact (how the intervention creates change), and context (how context influences implementation and outcomes). To more comprehensively assess and manage factors that may affect successful implementation of interventions in various contexts, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) has been utilized. Prior to study start information will be collected on contextual factors that may have influenced the implementation process and will be assessed by telephone interviews. The data collection for the process evaluation is carried out concurrently with the implementation of the intervention project and data will be collected over the eight months. It will be assessed by documentation, observation, questionnaires and focus group interviews.
Information will be distributed to managers in the Swedish healthcare system, via contact persons such as central patient safety representatives, HR-representatives and work environment specialists. If expressed interest from these functions, continued establishment within the organization will occur through senior management to first line management. Informed consent from senior management will be collected before further contact will be established with first line managers. Information about the study and what participation entails will be sent to managers by email and followed up with information meetings or equivalent. Included units will receive additional information about the study directed towards HCW at the unit. The research group will give further information about the study at workplace meetings with the possibility for the employees to ask questions and receive additional information. The HCW will be invited to participate in the study via their e-mail addresses at work. Informed consent will be collected in conjunction with the baseline questionnaire is sent out. Participation in the study is voluntarily. All HCW are eligible to participate in the intervention regardless of whether they choose to participate in the research study or not.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The study uses a stepped wedge cluster-controlled design with open cohort, where workplace acts as a cluster.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention-arm | Experimental | Procedure: SIOHPSCluster of 3-6 workplaces will start intervention at either baseline, 4 or 8 month from the start. |
| Wait-list group | Experimental | Procedure: Wait-listWait-listed group, will await intervention for either 4 or 8 months. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Individual staff needs to work at least 50% at the workplace
- Workplace provides 24-hour care
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Plan to implement another method for conduction daily work environment and/or patient safety work during the project period
- Units providing pediatric and psychiatric care
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| SIOHPSThe intervention is comprised of several core components such as targeted education, daily team reflections and support for systematic management. First, a two hour education will be conducted for management, HCW involved in patient safety work, safety representatives and intervention facilitators. The second core component is a short daily team reflection conducted by HCW at the unit in connection to the end of work shifts. These are standardized to support identification of situations at work related to both Safety I and II perspective for both occupational health and patient safety as well as learning. The third component includes risk assessment, planning and implementation of appropriate measures, follow up and evaluation, based in information identified in the second component. The steps in this component targets the management and should be conducted in close collaboration with HCW involved in patient safety work and the safety representatives. | Procedure or surgery | Intervention-arm |
| Wait-listNo intervention | Procedure or surgery | Wait-list group |
Primary outcome
Sick leave
Time frame: 12 months
Total number of sick leave days after intervention start. Register data.
Quality of care
Time frame: 12 months
Readmission rate within 30-days of discharge. Register data.
12 secondary outcomes
Job demands
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Job resources
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Learning environment
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Safety climate
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Work environment
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Work Engagement
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Productivity loss
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Health
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Short-term sick leave
Time frame: 12 months
Quality of care
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Patient Safety
Time frame: 4, 8 months
Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER): Sick leave and Quality of care
Time frame: 4 months before first intervention enrollment to 8 months after last intervention enrollment
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Feb 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41592318Goras C, Ersson AS, Hellman T, Bjurling-Sjoberg P, Bergstrom G, Sarkadi Kristiansson R, Lohela-Karlsson M. Process Evaluation of a Structured Method for Systematic and Integrated Occupational Safety and Health and Patient Safety Management Systems (SIOHPS): Protocol for a Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2026 Jan 27;15:e89185. doi: 10.2196/89185.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41126149Lohela-Karlsson M, Ersson AS, Hellman T, Conden Mellgren E, Bergstrom G, Bjurling-Sjoberg P, Sarkadi Kristiansson R, Goras C. Effectiveness- and cost effectiveness of a structured method for systematic and integrated occupational safety and health and patient safety management systems (SIOHPS) - a study protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Oct 22;25(1):1391. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-13537-4.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes
Related trials for Sick Leave
Not yet recruiting
SmaRTWork - a Decision Support System to Promote Return to Work Among People Sick-listed With Musculoskeletal Disorders
Sick Leave, Musculoskeletal
Not yet recruitingObservational study
WB6Dim-LTSA: Can Workplace Well-Being Scores Predict Collective Absenteeism?
Absenteeism, Sick Leave
Active, not recruiting
Assessment of Activity Limitations, a Basis for Understanding the Need for Sickness Certificate and Rehabilitation
Sick Leave
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing SIOHPS and Wait-list in people with Sick Leave and Quality Of Care, run by Region Västmanland at 2 sites in Sweden.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Feb 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Sweden. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Sick leave (time frame: 12 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06398860, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Feb 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 28 Oct 2026.