Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices 46335 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Public Meeting of the Presidential 

Commission for the Study of 

Bioethical Issues 

AGENCY: Presidential Commission for 

the Study of Bioethical Issues, Office of 

the Secretary, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Presidential Commission 

for the Study of Bioethical Issues will 

conduct its fourteenth meeting on 

August 19–20, 2013. At this meeting, 

the Bioethics Commission will continue 

to discuss the ethical implications of 

incidental findings. The Bioethics 

Commission will also discuss the 

BRAIN Initiative and ongoing work in 

neuroscience. 

DATES: The meeting will take place 

Monday and Tuesday, August 19–20, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Smilow Center for 

Translational Research, Perelman 

School of Medicine at the University of 

Pennsylvania, Smilow Center for 

Translational Research Commons, 3400 

Civic Center Boulevard, Building 421, 

Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hillary Wicai Viers, Communications 

Director, Presidential Commission for 

the Study of Bioethical Issues, 1425 

New York Avenue NW., Suite C–100, 

Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 

202–233–3960. Email: Hillary.Viers 

@bioethics.gov. Additional information 

may be obtained at www.bioethics.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

of 1972, Public Law 92–463, 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2, notice is hereby given of the 

fourteenth meeting of the Presidential 

Commission for the Study of Bioethical 

Issues (the Bioethics Commission). The 

meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 

approximately 5 p.m. on Monday, 

August 19, 2013, and from 9 a.m. to 

approximately 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 

August 20, 2013, in Philadelphia, PA. 

The meeting will be open to the public 

with attendance limited to space 

available. The meeting will also be 

webcast at www.bioethics.gov. 

Under authority of Executive Order 

13521, dated November 24, 2009, the 

President established the Bioethics 

Commission. The Bioethics Commission 

is an advisory panel of the nation’s 

leaders in medicine, science, ethics, 

religion, law, and engineering. The 

Bioethics Commission advises the 

President on bioethical issues arising 

from advances in biomedicine and 

related areas of science and technology. 

The Bioethics Commission seeks to 

identify and promote policies and 

practices that ensure scientific research, 

health care delivery, and technological 

innovation are conducted in a socially 

and ethically responsible manner. 

The main agenda item for the 

Bioethics Commission’s fourteenth 

meeting is to discuss the ethical 

implications of incidental findings. The 

Bioethics Commission will also discuss 

the BRAIN Initiative and ongoing work 

in neuroscience. 

The draft meeting agenda and other 

information about the Bioethics 

Commission, including information 

about access to the webcast, will be 

available at www.bioethics.gov. 

The Bioethics Commission welcomes 

input from anyone wishing to provide 

public comment on any issue before it. 

Respectful debate of opposing views 

and active participation by citizens in 

public exchange of ideas enhances 

overall public understanding of the 

issues at hand and conclusions reached 

by the Bioethics Commission. The 

Bioethics Commission is particularly 

interested in receiving comments and 

questions during the meeting that are 

responsive to specific sessions. Written 

comments will be accepted at the 

registration desk and comment forms 

will be provided to members of the 

public in order to write down questions 

and comments for the Bioethics 

Commission as they arise. To 

accommodate as many individuals as 

possible, the time for each question or 

comment may be limited. If the number 

of individuals wishing to pose a 

question or make a comment is greater 

than can reasonably be accommodated 

during the scheduled meeting, the 

Bioethics Commission may make a 

random selection. 

Written comments will also be 

accepted in advance of the meeting and 

are especially welcome. Please address 

written comments by email to 

info@bioethics.gov, or by mail to the 

following address: Public Commentary, 

Presidential Commission for the Study 

of Bioethical Issues, 1425 New York 

Ave. NW., Suite C–100, Washington, DC 

20005. Comments will be publicly 

available, including any personally 

identifiable or confidential business 

information that they contain. Trade 

secrets should not be submitted. 

Anyone planning to attend the 

meeting who needs special assistance, 

such as sign language interpretation or 

other reasonable accommodations, 

should notify Esther Yoo by telephone 

at (202) 233–3960, or email at 

Esther.Yoo@bioethics.gov in advance of 

the meeting. The Bioethics Commission 

will make every effort to accommodate 

persons who need special assistance. 

Dated: July 10, 2013. 

Lisa M. Lee, 

Executive Director, Presidential Commission 

for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18157 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4154–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

intention of the Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approve the proposed 

information collection project: 

‘‘Evaluation of the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program Reauthorization Act 

of 2009 (CHIPRA) Quality 

Demonstration Grant Program: 

Qualitative Data Collection.’’ In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, 

AHRQ invites the public to comment on 

this proposed information collection. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by September 30, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, 

Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by 

email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov. 

Copies of the proposed collection 

plans, data collection instruments, and 

specific details on the estimated burden 

can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by 

email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Project 

Evaluation of the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program Reauthorization Act 

of 2009 (CHIPRA) Quality 

Demonstration Grant Program: 

Qualitative Data Collection 

Section 401(a) of the Children’s 

Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), 

Public Law 111–3, amended the Social 

Security Act (the Act) to enact section 

1139A (42 U.S.C. 1320b–9a). AHRQ is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

46336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices 

requesting approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for the 

collection of qualitative data through 

site visit interviews and focus groups to 

support a comprehensive, mixedmethods evaluation of the quality 

demonstration grants authorized under 

section 1139A(d) of the Act. AHRQ’s 

mission of improving the quality and 

effectiveness of health care in the 

United States aligns with evaluating 

whether, and through what mechanism, 

projects funded by the CHIPRA 

demonstration grants improve the 

quality of care received by children in 

Medicaid and the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP). 

CHIPRA included funding for fiveyear grants so that States can 

experiment with and evaluate several 

promising ideas related to improving 

the quality of children’s health care in 

Medicaid and CHIP. In February 2010, 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) announced the award of 

10 demonstration grants to States that 

convincingly articulated an achievable 

vision of what they could accomplish by 

the end of the five-year grant period, 

described strategies they would use to 

achieve the objectives, and explained 

how the strategies would achieve the 

objectives. Applicants were encouraged 

by CMS to address multiple grant 

categories (described below) and to 

partner with other States in designing 

and implementing their projects. 

Of the 10 grantee States selected, six 

are partnering with other States, for a 

total of 18 demonstration States. The 

demonstration States are: Colorado 

(partnering with New Mexico); Florida 

(with Illinois); Maine (with Vermont); 

Maryland (with Wyoming and Georgia); 

Massachusetts; North Carolina; Oregon 

(with Alaska and West Virginia); 

Pennsylvania; South Carolina; and Utah 

(with Idaho). These demonstration 

States have implemented 51 distinct 

projects in at least one of five possible 

grant categories, A to E. Category A 

grantees are experimenting with and/or 

evaluating the use of pediatric quality 

measures, including those in the initial 

core set of children’s health care quality 

measures (a group of measures 

developed for state Medicaid and CHIP 

agencies to report in a standardized 

fashion to CMS). Category B grantees are 

promoting health information 

technologies for improved care delivery 

and patient outcomes. Category C 

grantees are implementing the patientcentered medical home (PCMH) model 

of primary care, working with schoolbased health centers (SBHCs) to 

improve care, or using other providerbased service delivery models aimed at 

improving care quality. Category D 

grantees will evaluate the impact of a 

model pediatric electronic health 

record. Category E grantees are testing 

other State-designed approaches to 

quality improvement in Medicaid and 

CHIP. This phase of the project will use 

qualitative techniques such as in-depth 

interviews and focus groups. 

The first round of interviews for the 

project was completed in an earlier 

phase of the project in August of 2012 

under an information collection request 

approved by OMB on February 17th, 

2012 (OMB Control No. 0935–0190). 

While the first round of interviews 

focused on demonstration goals and 

early strategies, the second round of 

interviews described in this information 

collection request will focus on 

demonstration outcomes and lessons 

learned. These interviews are designed 

to build on the information gathered in 

the first round to develop a complete 

picture of demonstration 

implementation. 

AHRQ’s goal in performing this 

evaluation of the CHIPRA Quality 

Demonstration Grant Program is to 

produce insights into how best to 

implement quality improvement 

programs as well as information on how 

successful programs can be replicated to 

improve children’s health care quality 

in Medicaid and CHIP. The specific 

goals of this project are as follows: 

1. Develop a deep, systematic 

understanding of how CHIPRA 

demonstration States carried out their grantfunded projects. 

2. Understand why the CHIPRA 

demonstration States pursued certain 

strategies. 

3. Understand whether and how the 

CHIPRA demonstration States’ efforts 

affected outcomes related to knowledge and 

behavior change in targeted providers and/or 

consumers of health care. 

4. Identify CHIPRA State activities that 

measurably improve the nation’s health care, 

especially as it pertains to children. 

This study is being conducted by 

AHRQ through its contractor, 

Mathematica Policy Research Inc., and 

their subcontractors, the Urban Institute 

and AcademyHealth, pursuant to 

AHRQ’s statutory authority to conduct 

and support research on health care and 

on systems for the delivery of such care, 

including activities with respect to the 

quality, effectiveness, efficiency, 

appropriateness and value of healthcare 

services and with respect to quality 

measurement and improvement. 42 

U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2). 

Method of Collection 

To meet the project goals AHRQ will 

implement the following data 

collections: 

1. Key Staff Interviews—Key staff 

members are staff directly involved in 

the design and oversight of grant-funded 

activities. The purpose of these 

interviews is to gain insight into the 

implementation of demonstration 

projects, to understand contextual 

factors, and to identify lessons and 

implications for the broad application 

and sustainability of projects. Semistructured interviews will be conducted 

with up to 4 key staff members per state. 

2. Implementation Staff Interviews— 

Other implementation staff are staff 

involved in the day-to-day 

implementation of grant-funded 

projects. These staff members include 

state agency employees, provider 

trainers or coaches, health IT vendors, 

and/or project consultants. The purpose 

of these interviews is to gain insight into 

the opportunities and challenges related 

to key technical aspects of project 

implementation. Semi-structured 

interviews will be conducted with up to 

16 other implementation staff members 

per state. 

3. Stakeholder Interviews—External 

stakeholders have a direct interest in 

children’s care quality in Medicaid and 

CHIP. Stakeholders include 

representatives of managed care 

organizations, state chapters of the 

American Academy of Pediatrics, 

advocacy organizations for children and 

families, and social service agencies. 

These stakeholders will be familiar with 

the CHIPRA projects and may serve on 

advisory panels or workgroups related 

to one or more projects. The interviews 

will gather insight into the 

opportunities and challenges related to 

project implementation, stakeholder 

satisfaction with their project 

involvement, and contextual factors. 

Semi-structured interviews will be 

conducted with up to 8 external 

stakeholders per State. 

4. Health Care Organization Staff 

Interviews—Depending on the projects a 

state is implementing, health care 

organizations participating in 

demonstration activities can include 

private practices, public clinics, 

federally qualified health centers, care 

management entities, or school based 

health centers. Interviews will capture 

information about project-related 

activities, staff perceptions of outcomes 

and impacts, and the organizations 

involvement in other qualityimprovement initiatives. Semistructured interviews will be conducted 

with up to 12 staff members per state. 

5. Parent Focus Groups—We will hold 

in-person focus groups with parents, 

guardians, or other caregivers of 

children who are enrolled in Medicaid 

or CHIP and are served by the medical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices 46337 

practices involved in the CHIPRA 

demonstration. There will be four focus 

groups in four of the twelve states 

implementing patient-centered medical 

home demonstration projects. The 

number of participants per focus group 

will range from 8 to 10, resulting in a 

maximum of 160 adults participating. 

They will be conducted in English, and 

also in Spanish in states with high 

proportions of Hispanic individuals 

covered by Medicaid. 

6. Adolescent Focus Groups—We will 

hold in-person focus groups with 

adolescents who are enrolled in 

Medicaid or CHIP and are served by 

school-based health centers involved in 

the CHIPRA demonstration. There will 

be four focus groups in one of the two 

states implementing school-based health 

center projects. The number of 

participants per focus group will range 

from 8 to 10, resulting in a maximum of 

40 adolescents participating. 

This evaluation is designed to 

develop a rich understanding of States’ 

implementation activities (goal 1), 

document the rationale for the selection 

of particular strategies (goal 2), 

document provider and parent reported 

behavior change (goal 3), and assess the 

perceived impact of those changes on 

access, quality, and cost of care (goal 4). 

Estimated Annual Respondent Burden 

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated 

annualized burden hours for the 

respondents’ time to participate in this 

evaluation. Key staff interviews will be 

conducted with up to four persons from 

each of the 18 CHIPRA demonstration 

States (72 total) and will last for about 

11⁄2 hours. Implementation staff 

interviews will include up to 16 persons 

from each of the 18 CHIPRA 

demonstration States (288 total) and 

take an hour to complete. Stakeholder 

interviews will include up to 8 persons 

from each of the 18 CHIPRA 

demonstration States (144 total) and 

also take an hour to complete. Health 

care provider interviews will be 

conducted with up to 12 persons from 

each of the 18 CHIPRA demonstration 

States and will last 45 minutes (216 

total). About 229 parents will be 

screened to get a maximum of 160 

parents to participate in 16 focus groups 

across 4 States implementing PCMHfocused demonstration projects. The 

screener takes 25 minutes to complete 

and the focus group will last one and a 

half hours; the burden estimate of 2.5 

hours includes one hour for travel time 

to and from the focus group site. About 

57 adolescents will be screened to get 

up to 40 adolescents to participate in 

four focus groups completed in one 

State with SBHC demonstration 

projects. The screener takes 25 minutes 

to complete and the focus group will 

last one and a half hours (travel time 

does not apply because the focus groups 

will be held on school premises). The 

total burden for the qualitative 

evaluation is estimated to be 1,281 

hours. 

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Form name Number of 

respondents* 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

Key Staff Interviews ......................................................................................... 72 1 1.5 108 

Implementation Staff Interviews ...................................................................... 288 1 1 288 

Stakeholder Interviews .................................................................................... 144 1 1 144 

Health Care Provider Interviews ...................................................................... 216 1 45/60 162 

Parent Focus Group Screener ........................................................................ ** 229 1 25/60 95 

Parent Focus Groups ...................................................................................... 160 1 2.5 400 

Adolescent Focus Group Screener ................................................................. ** 57 1 25/60 24 

Adolescent Focus Groups ............................................................................... 40 1 1.5 60 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,206 na na 1,281 

* The number of respondents that will be interviewed in each state will vary depending on the number, scope, complexity, and nature of the 

projects implemented. This table reflects upper-bound estimates of total burden hours and the number of respondents per type per state. 

** Based on an expected 70% screen-in rate 

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated 

annualized cost burden associated with 

the respondent’s time to participate in 

this evaluation. The total cost burden 

for the interviews and focus groups is 

estimated to be $43,303. 

EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN

Form name Number of 

respondents 

Total burden 

hours 

Average 

hourly wage 

rate* 

Total cost 

burden 

Key Staff Interviews ......................................................................................... 72 108 a $55.22 $5,964 

Implementation Staff Interviews ...................................................................... 288 288 b 30.99 8,925 

Stakeholder Interviews .................................................................................... 144 144 b30.99 4,463 

Health Care Provider Interviews ...................................................................... 216 162 c 80.59 13,056 

Parent Focus Group Screener ........................................................................ 229 95 d 22.01 2,091 

Parent Focus Groups ...................................................................................... 160 400 d 22.01 8,804 

Adolescent Focus Group Screener ................................................................. 57 24 e 0 0 .00 

Adolescent Focus Groups ............................................................................... 40 60 e 0 0 .00 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,206 1,281 na 43,303 

* National Compensation Survey: Occupational wages in the United States May 2012, ‘‘U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.’’ aBased on the mean wages for general and operations manager (11–1021) 

bBased on the mean wages for social and community service managers (11–9151) 

cBased on the mean wages for general pediatricians (29–1065) 

dBased on the mean wages for all occupations 

eWage rates for adolescents are assumed to be zero. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

46338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Notices 

Request for Comments 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s 

information collection are requested 

with regard to any of the following: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of AHRQ health care 

research and health care information 

dissemination functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including 

hours and costs) of the proposed 

collection(s) of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information upon the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and 

included in the Agency’s subsequent 

request for OMB approval of the 

proposed information collection. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Dated: July 23, 2013. 

Carolyn M. Clancy, 

AHRQ Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18378 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

intention of the Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approve the proposed 

information collection project: 

‘‘Collection of Information for Agency 

for Healthcare Research and Quality’s 

(AHRQ) Hospital Survey on Patient 

Safety Culture Comparative Database.’’ 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, 

AHRQ invites the public to comment on 

this proposed information collection. 

This proposed information collection 

was previously published in the Federal 

Register on May 16th, 2013 and allowed 

60 days for public comment. No 

comments were received. The purpose 

of this notice is to allow an additional 

30 days for public comment. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by August 30, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted to: AHRQ’s OMB Desk 

Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974 

(attention: AHRQ’s desk officer) or by 

email at 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov 

(attention: AHRQ’s desk officer). 

Copies of the proposed collection 

plans, data collection instruments, and 

specific details on the estimated burden 

can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by 

email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Project 

Collection of Information for Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality’s 

(AHRQ) Hospital Survey on Patient 

Safety Culture Comparative Database 

Request for information collection 

approval. The Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality (AHRQ) requests 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) reapprove, under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

AHRQ’s collection of information for 

the AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient 

Safety Culture (Hospital SOPS) 

Comparative Database; OMB NO. 0935– 

0162, last approved on May 5th, 2010. 

The Hospital SOPS Comparative 

Database consists of data from the 

AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient 

Safety Culture. Hospitals in the U.S. are 

asked to voluntarily submit data from 

the survey to AHRQ. The database was 

developed by AHRQ in 2006 in 

response to requests from hospitals 

interested in knowing how their patient 

safety culture survey results compare to 

those of other hospitals in their efforts 

to improve patient safety. 

Background on the Hospital SOPS. In 

1999, the Institute of Medicine called 

for health care organizations to develop 

a ‘‘culture of safety’’ such that their 

workforce and processes focus on 

improving the reliability and safety of 

care for patients (IOM, 1999; To Err is 

Human: Building a Safer Health 

System). To respond to the need for 

tools to assess patient safety culture in 

health care, AHRQ developed and pilot 

tested the Hospital Survey on Patient 

Safety Culture with OMB approval 

(OMB NO. 0935–0115; Approved 2/4/ 

2003). The survey was designed to 

enable hospitals to assess staff opinions 

about patient safety issues, medical 

error, and error reporting and includes 

42 items that measure 12 dimensions of 

patient safety culture. AHRQ released 

the survey to the public along with a 

Survey User’s Guide and other toolkit 

materials in November 2004 on the 

AHRQ Web site. Since its release, the 

survey has been voluntarily used by 

hundreds of hospitals in the U.S. 

Rationale for the information 

collection. The Hospital SOPS survey 

and the Hospital SOPS Comparative 

Database are supported by AHRQ to 

meet its goals of promoting 

improvements in the quality and safety 

of health care in hospital settings. The 

surveys, toolkit materials, and 

comparative database results are all 

made publicly available along with 

technical assistance, provided by AHRQ 

through its contractor at no charge to 

hospitals, to facilitate the use of these 

materials for hospital patient safety and 

quality improvement. 

This study is being conducted by 

AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, 

pursuant to AHRQ’s statutory authority 

to conduct and support research on 

healthcare and on systems for the 

delivery of such care, including 

activities with respect to: the quality, 

effectiveness, efficiency, 

appropriateness and value of healthcare 

services; quality measurement and 

improvement; and database 

development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), 

and (a)(8). 

Method of Collection 

All information collection for the 

Hospital SOPS Comparative Database is 

done electronically, except the Data Use 

Agreement (DUA) that hospitals sign in 

hard copy and fax or mail back. 

Registration, submission of hospital 

information, and data upload is handled 

online through a secure Web site. 

Delivery of confidential hospital survey 

feedback reports is also done 

electronically by having submitters 

enter a username and password and 

downloading their reports from a secure 

Web site. 

Survey data from the AHRQ Hospital 

Survey on Patient Safety Culture is used 

to produce three types of products: (1) 

An annual Hospital SOPS Comparative 

Database Report that is made publicly 

available in the public domain; (2) 

Individual Hospital Survey Feedback 

Reports that are confidential, 

customized reports produced for each 

hospital that submits data to the 

database; and (3) Research data sets of 

individual-level and hospital-level deidentified data to enable researchers to 

conduct analyses. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES