Risk Management Evaluation in Staff’s Perspective of Iran University Medical Sciences in 2021.

Background: Risk management is a rapidly growing field in most organizations around the world. Universities are responsible for generating the human capital needed to promote social development. This is associated with risks, so training leaders must embrace risk management and implement appropriate policies to address these risks. Risk management in terms of academic research, courses and degrees is very important in universities. However, in most aspects of university management, there is no evidence for risk management. The recent outbreak of the coronavirus has affected higher education institutions around the world. However, risk management in universities has not received as much attention as it should. Given the dynamic nature of the technological, political, economic, and social environments in which universities are located, these centers face a myriad of uncertainties that tend to create a very complex set of potential risks. These potential risks, if not properly managed and managed, can become serious challenges for universities. it is necessary for the university staff to have sufficient information about the measures taken in this regard so that they can help the university officials in necessary cases and has the important roles in this regard. This study was conducted to determine the risk management Evaluation in Staff’s Perspective of Iran University Medical Sciences in 2021. Method: The present study is a descriptive cross-sectional study with samples of 224 administrative staff of Iran University of Medical Sciences who were selected by continuous method. Zaboli et al.'s Risk Management Questionnaire (2010) which was used to assess the validity of the content of the two main questionnaires from the views of experts, including three faculty members of the School of Nursing and Midwifery. The judges' opinions were then included in the questionnaires to the extent that loyalty to the main tool was not compromised. The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated by analyzing the first 20 questionnaires of the reliability of the tool again and this sample was excluded from the study. Accordingly, Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α = 98) confirmed the reliability of this tool. Risk management was classified into six dimensions, the first dimension of which is related to the level of employees' knowledge of risk management, the second dimension of risk management status, the third dimension of policies and procedures, the fourth dimension of training status Risk, the fifth dimension was the position of risk management and finally the sixth dimension was monitoring, analysis, evaluation and risk control. In total, the questionnaire was examined in 45 questions on a 5-point Likert scale and was classified into three levels: poor (score less than 3), moderate (score 3 to 4) and good (score more than4). The data were analyzed using SPSS software (descriptive and inferential statistics). the numerical indices of minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the quantitative variables of the research were used. Friedman test was used to examine the relationship between domains and independent t-test, analysis of variance and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to examine the relationship between individual variables and risk management. Results: The results showed that the majority of employees (59.4%) were women and the majority (48.7%) were in the age group of 45-36 years. The majority of employees (72.8%) were married. Most of participants (54.4%) worked in administrative headquarters. More than half of the employees (53.1%) had a university degree at the undergraduate level and only 12.5% ​​of them had completed risk management courses. The results showed that Risk management in the field of knowledge of employees with risk management with an average of 2.60±0/84 highest and in the field of monitoring, analysis, assessment and control of risk with an average of 2.38±0/87 had the lowest average score among other areas. The total score of risk management was 2.44±0/82, which indicates that the understanding of the administrative staff of Iran University of Medical Sciences was poor. The result of Friedman test showed that there is a statistically significant relationship between employees' knowledge of risk management and all areas of risk management (p = 0.00). Statistical tests showed that risk management had a statistically significant relationship with the variables of gender (P = 0.02), risk management (p <0.001) and education (p = 0.02). The mean score was higher in men than women and also in employees who had passed the risk management course was higher than other employees. Two-to-two Tukey comparison also showed that the average score obtained by employees with master's degree education was significantly higher than associate degree (p = 0.03) and at other levels this difference was not significant. Conclusion: In this study, different areas of risk management were evaluated from the perspective of employees. It was also evaluated whether the individual variables of employees are related to risk management. The results of data analysis showed that risk management in the university from a staff perspective in all areas is at a weak level and needs more attention. Given that the area of ​​employee knowledge of risk management is related to other areas and can affect other areas, and also given that a high percentage of participants did not know about most areas, it is necessary to pay special attention to risk management in university educational programs in order to familiarize employees with it. In this regard, the development of educational programs, the adoption of policies and procedures and the establishment of monitoring programs to implement risk management should be seriously pursued in the university. Given that the field of risk monitoring, assessment and control has the lowest average score among other areas, in order to properly monitor the analysis, risk assessment and control, senior managers should provide the necessary facilities and tools for risk assessment, analysis and control. And well-trained observers to take control measures if the risk management is not implemented properly and put the university on the right track to achieve its strategic goals.