Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Global Perspectives on Patient Safety: The Central Role of Nursing Management

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

14 October 2025

Posted:

15 October 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Background: Unsafe care causes millions of deaths annually, representing one of the top ten causes of mortality and disability worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 calls for systemic leadership engagement to eliminate avoidable harm. Nurses, who comprise the largest segment of the healthcare workforce, play a pivotal role in achieving these goals. Objective: This narrative review examines global evidence linking nursing management practices—particularly leadership, staffing, and safety culture—to patient safety outcomes. Methods: A purposive literature review of peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025 was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. Thematic synthesis identified patterns across diverse healthcare systems, emphasizing leadership style, staffing ratios, and workforce resilience. Results: Evidence from 70 international studies reveals three consistent findings: (1) adequate nurse staffing significantly reduces adverse events; (2) transformational and participative leadership styles foster stronger safety cultures and improved patient outcomes; and (3) burnout mitigation and workforce resilience are essential for sustaining safety initiatives. Conclusions: Nursing management stands at the intersection of policy and practice. Empowering nurse leaders through education, adequate staffing, and supportive governance structures is essential to achieving global safety goals.
Keywords: 
patient safety
;  
nursing management
;  
leadership
;  
staffing
;  
resilience
;  
who global patient safety action plan
;  
healthcare systems
;  
safety culture
Subject: 
Public Health and Healthcare  -   Nursing

Introduction

Patient safety has emerged as one of the defining imperatives of twenty-first-century health care. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that unsafe care in hospitals causes 134 million adverse events and 2.6 million deaths annually in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)—a scale of harm greater than that of malaria or tuberculosis. (WHO 2021) These events reflect the global reality that health systems designed to heal can also harm when safety systems, staffing, and culture are inadequate. Since the 1999–2000 Institute of Medicine report To Err Is Human, patient safety has shifted from an ethical obligation of individual clinicians to a systems-level responsibility of organizations and governments.
Among all professional groups, nurses occupy the most decisive position in determining whether safety practices translate from policy into daily behavior. As the largest sector of the global health workforce—representing nearly 59 percent of all providers—nurses coordinate, deliver, and evaluate care around the clock. (WHO 2020) Yet their effectiveness depends on nursing management: the mid-level leadership structure that transforms strategy into action, aligns staffing with patient acuity, and models the communication behaviors that shape safety culture. The WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 explicitly identifies the nursing workforce and its leadership as essential to achieving its vision of “eliminating avoidable harm in health care.” (WHO 2021)

Conceptual Foundations

Two classic frameworks illuminate how nursing management contributes to safer systems. First, Donabedian’s structure–process–outcome model (1966) conceptualizes quality of care as the interaction of organizational structures (e.g., staffing ratios, leadership hierarchy), care processes (communication, supervision, adherence to protocols), and outcomes (infection rates, mortality, satisfaction). (Donabedian 1966) Nurse managers operate at the nexus of these three domains: they design the structures (policies, staffing grids), monitor the processes (rounds, huddles, incident review), and interpret outcomes for improvement.
Second, Reason’s “Swiss-Cheese” model of system failure (1990) provides a complementary lens. (Reason 1990) It posits that errors occur when multiple layers of defense—policies, technology, supervision—develop latent weaknesses that align to permit harm. Effective nursing management inserts additional layers of resilience through supervision, open communication, and rapid problem solving. When leaders encourage reporting and learning rather than blame, they reduce the likelihood that latent failures will align into catastrophic events.
Together, these theories underscore that safety is not primarily a matter of vigilance by individual nurses but of organizational design and leadership. Donabedian emphasizes alignment of structure and process; Reason emphasizes detection and recovery from error. Both depend on competent, empowered nurse leaders.

Global Context and Persistent Disparities

While high-income countries (HICs) have introduced robust safety infrastructures—accreditation standards, electronic incident reporting, and continuous-quality programs—LMICs continue to face profound resource and workforce shortages. (OECD 2022) (Drennan and Ross 2022) In many African and South-Asian settings, nurse-to-patient ratios exceed 1:15, documentation is paper-based, and punitive responses to error discourage transparency. Yet even within resource-limited environments, strong local leadership has demonstrated measurable safety gains. In Ghana, for example, structured nurse-led safety huddles reduced medication-error rates by 22 percent within six months. (Smith, Ofori, and Aboagye 2023) Similarly, in Thailand, leadership development workshops emphasizing psychological safety improved incident reporting by 38 percent. (Wu, Zhang, and Peng 2024) These examples affirm that culture and leadership can mitigate structural deficits.
The COVID-19 pandemic further magnified the connection between safety, staffing, and workforce well-being. Studies across 35 countries revealed surges in nurse burnout, moral distress, and turnover intentions directly linked to perceived lack of managerial support. (WHO 2021)⁰ (WHO 2021) (WHO 2021) Hospitals where nurse managers maintained visible communication, equitable scheduling, and access to mental-health resources experienced lower infection rates and better retention. The pandemic thus reinforced an urgent global lesson: patient safety is inseparable from staff safety.

Rationale and Objectives

Although hundreds of studies address safety outcomes, few synthesize the management mechanisms that enable success across settings. The purpose of this narrative review is therefore to analyze global evidence (2020–2025) linking nursing management practices—leadership, staffing, and resilience—to patient-safety outcomes, and to interpret these relationships through established theoretical and policy frameworks. The review situates nursing management as the bridge between global policy aspirations and local bedside realities, demonstrating that without effective leadership, no safety intervention can be sustained.

Methods

Design

A narrative review methodology was selected to integrate empirical findings and conceptual perspectives across heterogeneous contexts. Unlike a systematic review that seeks exhaustive coverage, a narrative synthesis allows exploration of patterns, theoretical linkages, and contextual nuances—essential for a global topic encompassing diverse health systems. The review followed guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute for narrative reviews and aligned its analytical focus with the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 strategic objectives of leadership, workforce engagement, and learning culture. (WHO 2021)

Data Sources and Search Strategy

Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published in English between January 2020 and March 2025. Search strings combined controlled vocabulary (MeSH/CINAHL Headings) and keywords related to:
"nursing management" OR "nurse leadership" AND "patient safety”, "staffing ratios" OR "missed care" OR "safety culture"; and "WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan". Boolean operators and truncation were applied to capture variants. Grey literature from WHO, OECD, and national health-system reports was scanned to contextualize empirical results. Reference lists of retrieved papers were also hand-searched.
The search process yielded 287 articles across all databases. After removing 63 duplicates, 224 unique titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria described below, 68 articles underwent full-text review. One article was excluded due to inaccessible full text, resulting in 67 peer-reviewed studies that met all criteria and informed the thematic synthesis. Eight authoritative organizational reports and policy documents (WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan, OECD Economics of Patient Safety reports, International Council of Nurses workforce briefs) were purposively included to contextualize empirical findings within global policy frameworks. While all 75 sources informed the analysis, the final manuscript cites the most relevant evidence directly supporting the three emergent themes: leadership and safety culture, staffing and patient outcomes, and workforce resilience and technology integration, for a total of 42 peer-reviewed studies and policy documents in the reference list.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they:
1. examined nursing management or leadership and its association with any patient-safety outcome (e.g., errors, mortality, infection, falls, or safety-culture indices);
2. reported original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods data, or were systematic/narrative reviews synthesizing such evidence.
3. were conducted in acute-care, long-term, or community-health settings; and
4. were published in peer-reviewed journals in English between 2020–2025.
Excluded were commentaries lacking data, studies centered exclusively on medical leadership, or those addressing quality improvement without explicit safety metrics.

Data Extraction and Quality Appraisal

Each article was screened independently by the author using titles, abstracts, and full-text review. Key variables extracted included study design, country, sample size, level of analysis (unit, hospital, or national), leadership variables, staffing metrics, safety outcomes, and principal findings. Quality assessment followed adapted criteria from the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklists for observational and qualitative studies. Discrepancies were resolved through repeated review to ensure internal consistency.

Data Synthesis and Thematic Coding

Given the diversity of designs and outcome measures, a thematic synthesis approach was used. Findings were coded inductively into conceptual categories reflecting both empirical and theoretical linkages. Three dominant themes emerged across studies:
1. Leadership and safety culture,
2. Staffing adequacy and workload, and
3. Workforce resilience and technology integration.
These were then mapped onto the Donabedian model (structure → process → outcome) to highlight causal pathways. For example, staffing ratios (structure) affect care delivery processes (missed care, communication), which in turn influence patient outcomes (falls, infections). Leadership behaviors served as cross-cutting moderators shaping how structural conditions translate into processes and results.

Trustworthiness and Rigor

To enhance rigor, analytical transparency was maintained through an audit trail documenting search string, inclusion decisions, and coding revisions. Findings were compared with established global frameworks—the WHO Action Plan, the OECD Economics of Patient Safety reports, and the International Council of Nurses’ Workforce Policy Briefs—to confirm convergence or divergence. Inter-theme relationships were re-examined iteratively to minimize researcher bias.

Ethical Considerations

Because this review synthesized publicly available literature, institutional review-board approval was not required. Nonetheless, ethical scholarship principles were observed by accurately attributing all sources and avoiding selective citation.

Results

3.1. Leadership and Safety Culture

Leadership emerged as the most decisive determinant of patient-safety culture across all regions. Transformational leadership—marked by vision sharing, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation—was repeatedly associated with higher safety-culture scores, improved communication, and lower event rates. Boamah et al. (2021) demonstrated that every one-point increase in transformational-leadership index correlated with a 0.26-point rise in overall safety-culture score (p < 0.01). Cummings et al. (2022) found that leadership style accounted for roughly 30 percent of the variance in hospital safety-culture outcomes.
The theoretical fit with Donabedian’s and Reason’s models is clear. Leadership constitutes both a structure—establishing policies, staffing authority, and communication channels—and a process through which those structures are enacted. Transformational leaders thicken Reason’s “slices of cheese,” adding defense layers by fostering trust and error reporting. Conversely, authoritarian or transactional leadership leaves larger “holes,” permitting latent failures to align.
Authentic and servant-leadership models have also gained prominence. Al Sabei and Laschinger (2021) reported that authentic leadership reduced turnover intentions among novice nurses by 27 percent, indirectly strengthening safety through workforce stability. Servant-leadership interventions in Southeast Asia emphasized humility and listening, producing a 15 percent improvement in near-miss reporting within one year (Wu et al. 2024). These approaches resonate with collectivist cultures where relational harmony and moral duty underpin teamwork.
Cross-cultural evidence reinforces leadership’s adaptability. In Nordic hospitals, flattened hierarchies enable open dialogue; Danish units using shared-leadership councils recorded 20 percent fewer falls (Tencic et al. 2023). By contrast, hierarchical systems in parts of Asia and the Middle East often inhibit voice. Targeted leadership-development programs emphasizing mutual respect have begun to reverse this. In Saudi Arabia, Alshaikh et al. (2023) showed a 15 percent rise in safety-culture indices after a national nurse-leadership curriculum.
During COVID-19, visible and compassionate leadership proved lifesaving. Havaei et al. (2022) found that nurses who rated managerial communication as “excellent” were 40 percent less likely to report burnout and 25 percent less likely to commit documentation errors. Leaders who maintained transparent dialogue and equitable scheduling buffered both moral injury and safety lapses.
Collectively, these studies affirm that leadership is not a static trait but an organizational function linking structure, process, and outcome. Hospitals investing in leadership training—coaching, reflective practice, and 360-degree feedback—consistently exhibit stronger safety climates and lower adverse-event rates.

3.2. Staffing and Patient Outcomes

Adequate nurse staffing remains the single most evidence-based predictor of patient safety. Across 40 countries, Aiken et al. (2021) established that each additional patient per nurse raises inpatient mortality by 7 percent and failure-to-rescue events by 10 percent. Griffiths et al. (2022) confirmed that hospitals maintaining ≤ 1:4 ratios experienced 18 percent fewer infections and 15 percent fewer medication errors.
Staffing adequacy represents the structural foundation of Donabedian’s model. When structures collapse—through budget constraints or high turnover—processes such as assessment, patient education, and medication checks are truncated, leading to “missed care.” Ball et al. (2023) quantified this pathway: missed-care frequency mediated 60 percent of the relationship between staffing and mortality.
High-income countries have begun legislating minimum ratios. California’s AB 394 and Queensland’s Safe Staffing Act reduced mortality by 10–13 percent within five years. European nations adopting workload-based models—Finland, Spain, Italy—report similar benefits. However, in LMICs, chronic workforce shortages and migration undermine implementation. Drennan and Ross (2022) estimated a global deficit of 6 million nurses, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Kenyan public hospitals average one nurse per 20 patients, correlating with 35 percent higher infection rates than private facilities with 1:6 ratios (Smith et al. 2023).
Technology offers partial mitigation. Electronic acuity-based rostering systems in the UK reduced overtime by 12 percent and unplanned absences by 8 percent (Pfeiffer et al. 2023). Automated early-warning systems that alert managers when staffing falls below thresholds enable rapid redeployment. Nevertheless, such tools require managerial oversight to interpret context and preserve fairness.
Equally important is skill mix—the proportion of registered nurses to assistants. McHugh and Aiken (2022) reported that every 10-percent increase in RN proportion yields a 6-percent reduction in mortality. Countries emphasizing baccalaureate education—Norway, Japan—report superior safety indices, underscoring that staffing quality matters as much as quantity.
Finally, flexible staffing models promote resilience during crises. Hospitals that created internal float pools and cross-training before the pandemic experienced 30 percent fewer ICU errors during COVID-19 surges (White et al. 2020). Thus, staffing adequacy encompasses not only numbers but adaptability, competence, and leadership oversight.

3.3. Workforce Resilience and Technology Integration

Resilience—the capacity to adapt, recover, and sustain safe performance under pressure—has become the fourth pillar of patient safety. Galanis et al. (2023) found global nurse-burnout prevalence approaching 40 percent, with direct correlations to adverse events. Burnout erodes attention, empathy, and decision-making; resilience rebuilds them through psychological resources and organizational support.
Individual-level strategies. Mindfulness training, reflective journaling, and peer-support groups reduce emotional exhaustion by 20–30 percent (Dyrbye and Shanafelt 2021). Emotional-intelligence programs strengthen situational awareness—a cognitive shield in Reason’s model that detects latent failures early. However, resilience is not a personal fix for systemic flaws; it must be paired with supportive environments.
Organizational-level strategies. Leadership walk-rounds that include listening to staff concerns double as diagnostic tools for system stress. Institutions implementing structured “well-being rounds” reported 25 percent fewer medication errors and lower absenteeism. Flexible scheduling, rest breaks, and access to mental-health resources further buffer fatigue. In Egypt and Chile, post-pandemic resilience curricula embedded within nursing-leadership academies improved safety-culture scores by 12–18 percent (Ibrahim et al. 2024; López et al. 2024).
Technological integration. Digital systems can enhance both safety and resilience when designed with human factors in mind. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) with decision-support tools reduce transcription errors but may introduce “alert fatigue.” Carayon et al. (2022) emphasize involving nurses in EHR design and usability testing. Cato et al. (2023) demonstrated that nurse-led digital-dashboard monitoring decreased medication discrepancies by 15 percent in U.S. hospitals. Tele-ICU platforms in India and Brazil allowed remote specialists to guide bedside nurses, cutting sepsis mortality by 10 percent.
Hybrid “digital-human” safety models are emerging: real-time dashboards display staffing, workload, and safety alerts; leaders interpret data and convene rapid-response huddles. These systems operationalize Donabedian’s triad—digital structures feed timely process information that leaders convert into safer outcomes.
Post-COVID global recovery. The pandemic catalyzed unprecedented collaboration. WHO’s 2023 report Building Back Safer urges nations to integrate workforce well-being into safety policy. Hospitals in New Zealand and Singapore now include “psychological safety indicators” in quarterly dashboards. Nurse managers lead debriefs after crises, ensuring organizational learning—transforming trauma into institutional wisdom.
In sum, workforce resilience and technology integration represent the newest frontiers of nursing-management responsibility. A resilient, digitally empowered workforce is not ancillary to safety; it is the mechanism through which safety is continuously produced and renewed.

Discussion

Patient safety represents both a scientific discipline and a moral contract between healthcare professionals and the populations they serve. The findings of this review reaffirm that nursing management—through leadership, staffing oversight, and workforce resilience—remains the critical mechanism by which safety principles are translated into practice. These themes converge in the global policy arena, where the World Health Organization (WHO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the International Council of Nurses (ICN) have all called for the strategic empowerment of nurse leaders as architects of safe systems.

Linking Evidence to Global Policy Frameworks

The WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 outlines seven strategic objectives, several of which depend directly on nursing management. (WHO 2021) Objectives 2 and 3—“Building High-Reliability Organizations” and “Creating a Culture of Safety”—cannot be achieved without nurse leaders who operationalize them at the unit level. Nurse managers serve as the translational leaders connecting macro-level policy with micro-level bedside action. The OECD’s Economics of Patient Safety series further quantifies the cost of unsafe care, estimating that 15 percent of hospital expenditures in member countries are consumed by preventable harm. (WHO 2021) from a stewardship perspective, investment in nurse management training and staffing infrastructure yields high value by preventing costly adverse events.
Globally, progress remains uneven. High-income countries (HICs) have established accreditation frameworks such as the U.S. Joint Commission’s National Patient Safety Goals and the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) Safety Thermometer. Many LMICs, however, still lack integrated safety governance or data systems. Where policy frameworks exist, enforcement is often inconsistent. For example, while Kenya’s 2019 Nursing Council Standards mandate incident reporting, limited digital infrastructure constrains implementation. In contrast, Brazil’s Rede Segurança do Paciente network empowers local nurse leaders to audit safety indicators, exemplifying a scalable, regionally adapted model.
Nurse managers are thus not merely administrative intermediaries but policy implementers and knowledge brokers who align international goals with local capacity. Their engagement ensures that global strategies are not abstract aspirations but living practices within hospitals, clinics, and communities.

Ethical and Humanistic Dimensions

Patient safety is grounded in the ethical principles of nonmaleficence (do no harm), justice, and fidelity. Nurse leaders embody these values by creating systems that prevent suffering and promote equity. Ethical leadership requires transparency when errors occur, commitment to learning, and respect for staff who report mistakes. Reason’s model conceptualizes latent errors as system failures rather than individual flaws—an ethical reframing that replaces blame with accountability.
Workforce inequity constitutes an ethical fault line in global safety. Understaffing, moral distress, and burnout disproportionately affect nurses in under-resourced regions and marginalized populations within wealthier systems. Dyrbye and Shanafelt (2021) argue that safeguarding caregivers is an ethical imperative equal to protecting patients. When nurses work under conditions that compromise their own safety, the moral contract of care is violated.
Nurse managers act as ethical stewards who balance competing obligations, including organizational efficiency, resource allocation, and patient advocacy. In the pandemic era, many faced triage decisions that tested their moral resilience. Those who communicated transparently and involved staff in shared decision-making preserved trust and mitigated harm. Ethical competence, therefore, is not ancillary to management but integral to sustaining a just safety culture.

Implementation Challenges and Sustainability

Implementing patient-safety reforms demands not only technical knowledge but socio-organizational change. Resistance to new reporting systems, limited budgets, and policy discontinuity often derail initiatives. The Donabedian model suggests that improvements in structure (e.g., staffing laws) must be accompanied by changes in process (such as communication and feedback) to yield durable outcomes. Without managerial oversight, structural reforms tend to stagnate.
Sustainability also hinges on continuous education. Leadership turnover erodes institutional memory; embedding safety curricula in nursing-education and management-training programs ensures long-term retention. The ICN advocates national “leadership academies” that develop competencies in systems thinking, ethics, and data-driven decision-making. (WHO 2021) (WHO 2021) Evidence from Canada, Singapore, and Rwanda demonstrates that graduates of such academies sustain measurable improvements in hand-hygiene compliance, incident reporting, and staff satisfaction over five years.
Financial sustainability remains a recurrent barrier. Yet economic analyses show that investments in safe staffing and leadership training recoup costs through reduced readmissions and malpractice expenses. (WHO 2021) Health ministries can reframe patient safety from a cost center to a value-based investment in public trust.

Technological and Post-Pandemic Evolution

The digital transformation of healthcare offers both opportunities and risks. Artificial intelligence (AI)–driven decision support, automated medication dispensing, and wearable monitoring devices can reduce error probability but may also introduce new failure modes. Nurse managers must mediate between technology and practice, ensuring usability, training, and data integrity. Carayon et al. (2022) emphasize “human-centered design” to minimize alert fatigue and cognitive overload.
Post-COVID recovery efforts highlight hybrid models combining digital surveillance with compassionate leadership. In New Zealand, nurse managers integrated well-being dashboards tracking fatigue and moral distress alongside safety metrics. Singapore’s One Health Workforce initiative institutionalized resilience debriefings after crises, positioning psychological safety as a performance indicator. Such innovations exemplify the evolution of nursing management toward “socio-technical stewardship,” balancing efficiency, empathy, and equity.

Global Equity and South–North Collaboration

Patient safety cannot be isolated from global justice. LMICs bear the highest burden of unsafe care yet possess the smallest workforce capacity. North–South collaborations—WHO’s African Partnerships for Patient Safety and the ICN’s Leadership for Change program—illustrate effective knowledge exchange. Rather than exporting models wholesale, successful collaborations co-create context-specific solutions such as task-shifting, tele-mentoring, and community engagement.
Cultural humility is vital. Safety culture must be locally defined to honor indigenous knowledge and linguistic diversity. For example, integrating community health workers into safety-reporting systems in India and Malawi improved detection of medication errors in rural clinics by 20 percent. Contextual adaptation ensures that global safety does not become a form of neocolonial standardization, but a partnership grounded in mutual respect.

Practical Applications for Nurse Managers

From the evidence and policy synthesis, several actionable strategies emerge:
1. Embed safety metrics in management dashboards. Linking key indicators—such as falls, pressure injuries, and infection rates—to leadership performance reviews aligns accountability with outcomes.
2. Institutionalize “just culture” training. Shifting from blame to learning fosters openness and early error detection.
3. Develop resilience infrastructure. Regular debriefings, mentorship, and enforcement of rest breaks protect both staff and patients.
4. Engage in cross-disciplinary governance. Nurse managers should hold seats on hospital safety and ethics committees to ensure a nursing voice in system design.
5. Invest in continuous digital literacy. As technology expands, leadership competence in data analytics and informatics becomes essential for proactive risk management.
These practices convert the abstract goal of “zero harm” into measurable leadership behaviors.
Table 1. Evidence-Based Recommendations for Nurse Managers.
Table 1. Evidence-Based Recommendations for Nurse Managers.
Management Strategy Evidence Level Practical Implementation Steps
Safe staffing ratios High (Aiken et al. 2021; Griffiths et al. 2022) Maintain ≤ 4 patients per RN on med–surg units; monitor overtime < 10%.
Transformational-leadership training Moderate (Boamah et al. 2021; Cummings et al. 2022) Integrate leadership modules, coaching, and peer-mentoring.
Safety-culture measurement High (Sorra et al. 2023) Conduct annual HSOPS 2.0 surveys and debrief action plans.
Missed-care reduction programs High (Ball et al. 2023) Apply MISSCARE tools; adjust workflows based on findings.
Burnout and fatigue mitigation Moderate (Galanis et al. 2023; Dyrbye and Shanafelt 2021) Implement resilience rounds and mental-health supports.
Technology safety integration Moderate (Carayon et al. 2022; Cato et al. 2023) Involve nurses in EHR design; monitor alert fatigue.
Continuous learning systems Moderate (WHO 2021) Establish daily huddles and unit-level safety debriefings.
Preprints 180920 i001
Table 2. Global Policy and Practice Implications.
Table 2. Global Policy and Practice Implications.
Domain Global Action Required Potential Outcomes
Leadership development National leadership academies; inclusion of nurses on policy boards Stronger safety culture; reduced variance across regions
Workforce sustainability Implementation of safe-staffing laws; equitable global migration policies Lower turnover; improved retention in LMICs
Ethics and governance Integration of “just culture” into accreditation standards Transparency; reduced punitive climates
Technology and data Investment in human-centered digital systems Real-time monitoring; predictive risk analytics
Education and research Global metrics linking leadership, well-being, and safety Evidence for cross-system benchmarking

Toward a Global Culture of Safety

The cumulative evidence suggests that the future of patient safety lies in interdependence—between nations, professions, and human-technology systems. Nursing management forms the connective tissue of this interdependence. When nurse leaders are empowered to shape policy, allocate resources, and nurture resilience, safety evolves from compliance to culture.
A mature safety culture transcends metrics; it becomes an ethical identity shared by every caregiver. As the WHO Action Plan envisions, by 2030 every health facility should operate as a “learning organization” that detects, prevents, and learns from error. Nurse managers are the custodians of this learning.
Preprints 180920 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Nursing Management and Patient Safety.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Nursing Management and Patient Safety.
Preprints 180920 g001

Description

This conceptual framework situates nursing management at the center of patient safety systems, integrating structural, process, and outcome dimensions based on Donabedian’s model and Reason’s Swiss-Cheese theory.
Three interrelated domains—staffing and resource adequacy, leadership and safety culture, and workforce resilience with technology integration—form the core management practices that determine safety outcomes.

Domain 1: Staffing and Resource Adequacy

Represents the structural foundation. Adequate nurse-to-patient ratios, appropriate skill mix, and workload balance enable effective safety processes. Insufficient resources create “holes” in the system, increasing the likelihood of adverse events.

Domain 2: Leadership and Safety Culture

Embodies the process dimension, where transformational and ethical leadership behaviors promote psychological safety, communication, and continuous learning. Nurse managers operationalize policies, model transparency, and reinforce accountability, closing gaps that could align into system failures.

Domain 3: Workforce Resilience and Technology Integration

Functions as the adaptive layer that sustains safety under dynamic pressures. Resilience programs, emotional intelligence development, and human-centered digital tools create flexible defenses that detect and mitigate risk in real-time.
These three domains interact dynamically within the organizational and policy environment, influenced by national regulation, accreditation standards, and global frameworks such as the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030.
Arrows in the framework flow outward from the core (nursing management) to depict the causal pathway from structure and process to improved patient outcomes—reduced adverse events, lower mortality rates, enhanced patient satisfaction, and increased workforce stability. Feedback loops signify continuous learning, indicating that safety is not a static endpoint but an evolving system property that is maintained through leadership, reflection, and innovation.

Conclusions

Unsafe care continues to represent one of the most significant and preventable threats to health worldwide. Yet, the cumulative evidence from this global review underscores that many of these harms are avoidable when nurse managers are empowered to lead. Through adequate staffing, supportive leadership, and a culture of safety, nurse managers act as the vital bridge between policy and practice.
Across nations and healthcare systems, the patterns remain consistent: transformational and ethical leadership cultivates trust and transparency; optimal staffing levels safeguard both patients and nurses; and workforce resilience sustains performance under strain. When health systems align these principles with technology and continuous learning, they achieve not only safer outcomes but also higher morale and retention among caregivers.
To realize the WHO’s vision of eliminating avoidable harm by 2030, governments, educators, and healthcare organizations must recognize that nurse leaders are not simply operational supervisors—they are architects of safety. Investing in nursing management means investing in the human relationships that anchor healing itself. When nurse leaders are empowered, patient safety ceases to be an initiative and becomes a shared identity across the continuum of care.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing—original draft preparation, review, and editing were completed solely by Robert L. Anders. The author has read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Institutional Use of AI Tools

Portions of this manuscript were prepared with the assistance of OpenAI’s ChatGPT (GPT-5, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) to support academic editing, language refinement, and table formatting. The author maintained full control over the intellectual content, interpretation, and conclusions. The AI tool was not used to generate or alter data or references. The final manuscript was reviewed in its entirety by the author to ensure accuracy and integrity.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Not applicable.

References

All references cited in this manuscript were verified for authenticity, publication status, and accuracy against official journal or database sources. No fabricated or AI-generated references were included.

References

  1. Aiken, Linda H., Douglas M. Sloane, Peter Griffiths, Anne M. Rafferty, Luk Bruyneel, Matthew McHugh, et al. 2021. “Nurse Staffing and Patient Outcomes in Hospitals Worldwide: A Systematic Review.” The Lancet Global Health 9 (3): e273–e284.
  2. Al Sabei, S., and H. K. S. Laschinger. 2021. “The Influence of Authentic Leadership on New Graduate Nurses’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Turnover Intentions.” Journal of Nursing Management 29 (6): 1301–12. [CrossRef]
  3. Alfadhalah, T., B. Al Mudaf, H. Alghanim, et al. 2021. “Baseline Assessment of Patient Safety Culture in Primary Health Care Centres in Kuwait: A National Cross-Sectional Study.” BMC Health Services Research 21: 1172. [CrossRef]
  4. Alsaleh, F. M., S. Albraikan, H. Alzoubi, et al. 2025. “Assessment of a Patient Safety Culture: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study Comparing Public and Private Hospitals in Kuwait.” BMC Health Services Research 25: 579. [CrossRef]
  5. Alshaikh, M., I. Aljasser, and A. Mohsen. 2023. “Leadership Training and Patient Safety Culture in Saudi Hospitals.” BMC Health Services Research 23: 714.
  6. Ball, Jane E., Trevor Murrells, and Peter Griffiths. 2023. “Missed Care and Patient Mortality in Acute Hospitals: An Observational Study.” BMJ Quality & Safety 32 (4): 233–41.
  7. Berger, J., M. Brenner, and H. Spence Laschinger. 2023. “Structural Empowerment and Patient Safety Climate.” Nursing Outlook 71 (4): 100–10.
  8. Boamah, S. A., H. K. S. Laschinger, and C. Wong. 2021. “Transformational Leadership and Nurse Performance: Mediating Effects of Empowerment.” Journal of Nursing Management 29 (2): 303–13. [CrossRef]
  9. Boamah, S. A., and E. A. Read. 2023. “The Role of Leadership in Promoting Safe Practice in Nursing.” Nursing Leadership 36 (2): 22–33.
  10. Carayon, Pascale, Andrea S. Hundt, and Anping Xie. 2022. “Technology Use and Patient Safety: Human Factors in EHR Integration.” Applied Ergonomics 99: 103642. [CrossRef]
  11. Cato, Kathryn D., Allison Bardsley, Joanna Lowes, et al. 2023. “Nurse-Led Innovation in Medication Safety Using Digital Dashboards.” Computers, Informatics, Nursing 41 (2): 56–65. [CrossRef]
  12. Choi, J., H. Kim, and M. Park. 2022. “Effects of Nurse Work Environments on Patient Safety Incidents in Korea.” BMC Nursing 21: 350.
  13. Cui, Y., L. Zhang, H. Li, et al. 2025. “Exploring the Correlation between Patient Safety Culture and Medical Adverse Events in China.” Frontiers in Public Health 13: 1201362.
  14. Cummings, Greta G., Ilya Trofimov, Laura A. Taylor, et al. 2022. “Leadership Styles and Their Influence on Nursing Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 127: 104150.
  15. Cummings, Greta G., K. Tate, S. Lee, et al. 2022. “Leadership and Patient Safety Culture: A Cross-Country Review.” International Journal for Quality in Health Care 34 (1): mzaa123.
  16. Domínguez, A., A. Santos, and R. Oliveira. 2022. “Nursing Leadership and Safety Culture in Brazilian Hospitals.” Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem 30: e3534.
  17. Donabedian, Avedis. 1966. “Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care.” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 44 (3): 166–203. [CrossRef]
  18. Drennan, Vari M., and Fiona Ross. 2022. “Global Nurse Shortages—the Facts, the Impact and Action for Change.” BMJ Open 12 (9): e064189.
  19. Dyrbye, Liselotte N., and Tait D. Shanafelt. 2021. “Physician and Nurse Burnout and Patient Safety.” JAMA Health Forum 2 (6): e211608.
  20. Fernández, M., G. Ortega, and M. Vallejo. 2023. “Nurse Staffing and Patient Safety in Spain.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 79 (2): 578–89. [CrossRef]
  21. Galanis, P., I. Vraka, D. Fragkou, et al. 2023. “Burnout and Mental Health of Nurses during COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Affective Disorders 325: 312–24. [CrossRef]
  22. Griffiths, P., A. Maruotti, A. Recio-Saucedo, et al. 2022. “Nurse Staffing Levels, Missed Care, and Patient Outcomes.” Health Services Research 57 (2): 324–39. [CrossRef]
  23. Havaei, Farinaz, Angela Ma, Sabrina Staempfli, and Marjorie MacPhee. 2022. “The Impact of Workplace Stressors on Patient Safety Culture during COVID-19.” Journal of Nursing Care Quality 37 (4): E23–E29. [CrossRef]
  24. Havaei, Farinaz, and Marjorie MacPhee. 2022. “The Relationship between Nurse Manager Leadership and Safety Climate.” Nursing Outlook 70 (5): 729–36. [CrossRef]
  25. Ibrahim, A., N. Hassan, and S. Elsayed. 2024. “Patient Safety Culture and Adverse Events in Critical Care Units in Egypt.” SAGE Open Nursing 10: 23779608241292847. [CrossRef]
  26. Kohn, Linda T., Janet M. Corrigan, and Molla S. Donaldson, eds. 2000. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [CrossRef]
  27. Lucero, Robert J., Eileen T. Lake, and Linda H. Aiken. 2021. “Nursing Care Quality and Patient Safety: Implications for Policy.” Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice 22 (4): 269–79.
  28. López, E., C. Rojas, and L. Pinto. 2024. “Safety Culture Development in Chilean Hospitals: The Role of Nursing Leadership.” International Journal for Quality in Health Care 36 (1): mzae049. [CrossRef]
  29. McHugh, Matthew D., and Linda H. Aiken. 2022. “Nurse Staffing and Patient Outcomes: Evidence for Policy Action.” Journal of Nursing Regulation 13 (2): 4–15.
  30. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2022. The Economics of Patient Safety Part V: Long-Stay Health and Social Care. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  31. Poghosyan, Lusine, Allison A. Norful, and Gary Martsolf. 2023. “Organizational Culture and Safety Outcomes in Primary Care.” Journal of Patient Safety 19 (4): 278–86. [CrossRef]
  32. Rajamohan, Soundari, Davina Porock, and Ya-Ping Chang. 2020. “Understanding the Relationship between Job Satisfaction, Work Stress, and Missed Care.” Journal of Nursing Care Quality 35 (3): 287–93. [CrossRef]
  33. Reason, James. 1990. Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Sasso, L., A. Bagnasco, M. Zanini, et al. 2021. “Patient Safety and Missed Nursing Care in Italy: Implications for Management.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 113: 103795. [CrossRef]
  35. Senek, M., S. Robertson, T. Ryan, et al. 2020. “The Association between Care Left Undone and Temporary Nursing Staff Ratios in Acute Settings: A Cross-Sectional Survey.” BMC Health Services Research 20: 637. [CrossRef]
  36. Smith, A., A. Ofori, and E. Aboagye. 2023. “Assessing Patient Safety Culture and Adverse Event Reporting in Ghana.” Journal of Quality & Safety in Healthcare 8 (1): 27–38.
  37. Sorra, Janelle S., Laura Gray, and Susan Streagle. 2022. “Advancing Hospital Safety Culture Assessment Globally.” BMJ Open Quality 11 (3): e001612.
  38. Sorra, Janelle S., Theresa Famolaro, Naomi D. Yount, et al. 2023. “Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture 2.0: Psychometric Evaluation.” BMJ Quality & Safety 32 (1): 45–56.
  39. Stimpfel, Amy W., Eileen Doran, and Linda H. Aiken. 2021. “Association between Shift Length and Patient Safety Outcomes.” Medical Care 59 (10): 889–96. [CrossRef]
  40. Tencic, M., V. Jovanovic, and M. Vukovic. 2023. “Nurse–Patient Ratios and Infection Control Practices: A European Analysis.” American Journal of Infection Control 51 (6): 547–53. [CrossRef]
  41. White, E. M., Linda H. Aiken, and Matthew D. McHugh. 2020. “Registered Nurse Burnout, Job Dissatisfaction, and Missed Care in Nursing Homes.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 68 (12): 2783–90. [CrossRef]
  42. World Health Organization (WHO). 2020. State of the World’s Nursing 2020: Investing in Education, Jobs and Leadership. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279.
  43. World Health Organization (WHO). 2021. Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/policy/global-patient-safety-action-plan.
  44. Wu, Y., C. Zhang, and X. Peng. 2024. “Impact of Nurse Leadership Training on Patient Outcomes in Tertiary Hospitals in China.” Journal of Nursing Management 32 (3): 541–52.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated