Speaking up about hand hygiene failures: A vignette survey study among healthcare professionals

Exploring Patient Empowerment in Major Depressive Disorder: Correlations of Trust, Active Role in Shared Decision-Making, and Symptomatology in a Sample of Italian Patients

Background/Objectives: Empowerment in medicine and psychiatry involves patients gaining control over health-related decisions, improving treatment adherence, outcomes, and satisfaction. This concept is especially significant in psychiatric care due to the complex challenges of mental health conditions, including stigma and impairment of emotional and cognitive functioning. We aim to investigate the correlations between patient trust, decision-making involvement, symptom severity, and perceived empowerment among individuals with Major Depression. Methods: Patients with Major Depressive Disorder were recruited in the "Policlinico G. Rodolico" psychiatry outpatient clinic from November 2022 to June 2023. Inclusion criteria: ages 18-65, ability to consent, stable condition, psychiatric medication history, and recent consultation. Exclusion criteria: psychotic features, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, high suicide risk, and severe comorbidities. Measures included the User Scale for Measuring Empowerment in Mental Health Services (SESM), Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS), Clinical Decision-Making Style for Patients (CDMS-P), and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). Analysis used Kendall's Tau correlation and Two-One-Sided Tests procedure. Results: Seventy-three patients completed the study. No relationship was found between decision-making involvement and perceived empowerment (τ = -0.0625; p = 0.448), or between trust in psychiatrists and empowerment (τ = 0.0747; p = 0.364). An inverse correlation existed between patient involvement in therapy management and trust (τ = -0.2505; p = 0.002). Depression severity inversely correlated with empowerment (τ = -0.2762; p = <.001), but not with trust or decision-making involvement. Conclusions: The lack of significant correlations suggests that decision-making involvement and trust alone may not suffice to enhance empowerment. Trust may encourage patient passivity, while skepticism might drive active involvement. Higher empowerment is associated with less depressive symptoms, highlighting its potential connection with patient outcomes.

The Speaking Up Climate of Nurses for Patient Safety Concerns and Unprofessional Behaviors: The Effects of Teamwork and Safety Climate

PURPOSE

This study aims to investigate the influence of teamwork and safety climate on nurses' speaking up for patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors.

DESIGN

This study incorporates a cross-sectional research design.

METHODS

The study included 217 surgical nurses employed in a Turkish university hospital. The research data were collected between April and June 2023 using the Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate Survey, Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety, and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism instruments. The relationships between these scales were assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. The Turkish validity and reliability of the Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism scales were verified. The research model was tested using path analysis.

FINDINGS

The mean age of the 217 surgical nurses was 25.88 ± 5.64 years. Teamwork climate showed a positive effect on safety climate and speaking up climate about patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors. Safety climate showed a positive association with nurses' speaking up climate about patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Teamwork climate and safety climate both positively affect the speaking up climate about patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors. Nurse managers who wish to promote a culture of speaking up about patient safety and unprofessional behaviors should prioritize improvements in the teamwork climate and safety climate.

Adaptation and validation of a Korean version of the speaking up about patient safety questionnaire (KSUPS-Q)

BACKGROUND

Speaking up by healthcare providers is an essential assertive communication strategy for ensuring patient safety and preventing incidents. However, more is needed to know about speaking up and instruments to assess it in the Korean context. Therefore, we assessed the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (KSUPS-Q) for measuring speaking up-related behavior and climate among nurses.

METHODS

The translation and adaptation process followed the guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the World Health Organization. Content validity was assessed by a six-member expert panel using the content validity index. In total, 314 nurses participated in an online survey to examine the psychometric properties. Internal consistencies were tested using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the subscales' construct. The convergent validity of the speaking up-related climate scale was assessed by testing correlations with teamwork and safety climate domains of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. In addition, we investigated the convergent validity of the speaking up-related behavior scale by examining its correlation with the climate scale.

RESULTS

The reliability of the 11-item behavior scale was satisfactory. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that a three-subscale model (perceived concerns, withholding voice, and speaking up) was appropriate (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, and SRMR = 0.05). Furthermore, the 11-item climate scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency. A three-subscale model (psychological safety, encouraging environment, and resignation) was confirmed (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, and SRMR = 0.05). The convergent validity of the climate scale was verified based on correlations with the teamwork (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and safety climate (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) domains of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. In addition, speaking up-related behavior and climate showed a significant association, indicating that the behavior scale is conceptually valid.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the KSUPS-Q is a valid and reliable instrument in Korea. This instrument can help nurse managers simultaneously monitor the behavior and climate of their organizations and evaluate the outcomes of interventions to enhance speaking up. Future research is needed to explore diverse factors contributing to speaking up, including clinical roles, team relationships, and supportive culture, to identify areas requiring further improvement.

The influence of hospital leadership support on burnout, psychological safety, and safety climate for US infection preventionists during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To explore infection preventionists' perceptions of hospital leadership support for infection prevention and control programs during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and relationships with individual perceptions of burnout, psychological safety, and safety climate.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey, administered April through December 2021.

SETTING

Random sample of non-federal acute-care hospitals in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Lead infection preventionists.

RESULTS

We received responses from 415 of 881 infection preventionists, representing a response rate of 47%. Among respondents, 64% reported very good to excellent hospital leadership support for their infection prevention and control program. However, 49% reported feeling burned out from their work. Also, ∼30% responded positively for all 7 psychological safety questions and were deemed to have "high psychological safety," and 76% responded positively to the 2 safety climate questions and were deemed to have a "high safety climate." Our results indicate an association between strong hospital leadership support and lower burnout (IRR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.74), higher perceptions of psychological safety (IRR, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.00-5.10), and a corresponding 1.2 increase in safety climate on an ascending Likert scale from 1 to 10 (β, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.93-1.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Our national survey provides evidence that hospital leadership support may have helped infection preventionists avoid burnout and increase perceptions of psychological safety and safety climate during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings aid in identifying factors that promote the well-being of infection preventionists and enhance the quality and safety of patient care.

Defining Speaking Up in the Healthcare System: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Communication issues have been shown to contribute to healthcare errors. For years healthcare professionals have been told to "speak up." What "speak up" means is unclear, as it has been defined and operationalized in many ways. Thus, this study aimed to systematically review the literature regarding definitions and measurements of speaking up in the healthcare system and to develop a single, comprehensive definition and operationalization of the concept.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, PsychoInfo, and Communication/Mass Media Complete databases were searched from 1999 to 2020. Publications were included if they mentioned speaking up for patient safety or any identified synonyms. Articles that used the term speaking up concerning non-health-related topics were excluded. This systematic review utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 294 articles met the inclusion criteria, yet only 58 articles focused on speaking up. While the most common synonym terms identified were "speak up" and "raise concern," only 43 articles defined speaking up. Accordingly, a modified definition was developed for speaking up-A healthcare professional identifying a concern that might impact patient safety and using his or her voice to raise the concern to someone with the power to address it.

DISCUSSION

Speaking up is considered important for patient safety. Yet, there has been a lack of agreement on the definition and operationalization of speaking up. This review demonstrates that speaking up should be reconceptualized to provide a single definition for speaking up in healthcare.

Speak-Up Behavior of Oncology Nurses: Organizational Trust and Structural Empowerment as Determinants

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to examine the mediating roles of organizational trust and structural empowerment on the speak-up behavior of oncology nurses.

BACKGROUND

Organizational trust can create opportunities for a good working environment. Structural empowerment is an important factor affecting the speak-up behavior of nurses. The intermediary roles of organizational trust and structural empowerment on speak-up behavior are not specific.

METHODS

A correlational descriptive research design was used, and 232 nurses from 2 different hospital levels (the Ministry of Health hospital and university hospital) responded to 4 questionnaires.

RESULT

The results reflect that organizational trust and structural empowerment are a factor on nurses' speak-up behavior.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrate that a work environment where organizational trust is developed and a structural empowerment framework is in place contributes to nurses' speak-up behavior among oncology nurses.

An integrative systematic review of employee silence and voice in healthcare: what are we really measuring?

The history of inquiries into the failings of medical care have highlighted the critical role of communication and information sharing, meaning that speaking up and employee silence have been extensively researched. However, the accumulated evidence concerning speaking-up interventions in healthcare indicates that they achieve disappointing outcomes because of a professional and organizational culture which is not supportive. Therefore, there is a gap with regard to our understanding of employee voice and silence in healthcare, and the relationship between withholding information and healthcare outcomes (e.g., patient safety, quality of care, worker wellbeing) is complex and differentiated. The following integrative review is aimed at addressing the following questions; (1) How is voice and silence conceptualized and measured in healthcare?; and (2) What is the theoretical background to employee voice and silence?. An integrative systematic literature review of quantitative studies measuring either employee voice or employee silence among healthcare staff published in peer-reviewed journals during 2016-2022 was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar. A narrative synthesis was performed. A review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO register (CRD42022367138). Of the 209 initially identified studies for full-text screening, 76 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the final review (N = 122,009, 69.3% female). The results of the review indicated the following: (1) concepts and measures are heterogenous, (2) there is no unifying theoretical background, and (3) there is a need for further research regarding the distinction between what drives safety voice versus general employee voice, and how both voice and silence can operate in parallel in healthcare. Limitations discussed include high reliance on self-reported data from cross-sectional studies as well as the majority of participants being nurses and female staff. Overall, the reviewed research does not provide sufficient evidence on the links between theory, research and implications for practice, thus limiting how research in the field can better inform practical implications for the healthcare sector. Ultimately, the review highlights a clear need to improve assessment approaches for voice and silence in healthcare, although the best approach to do so cannot yet be established.

An Australian interpretive description of Contact Precautions through a bioethical lens; recommendations for ethically improved practice

BACKGROUND

Contact Precautions (CP) were developed to control multi-resistant organisms (MROs) in hospitals. However, MROs persist and harms are associated with CP. Research objectives were to understand the bioethical impact of CP on patients and health-professionals, and make recommendations for ethically-improved management of MRO-colonised patients.

METHOD

Interpretive description methodology scaffolded upon bioethical principles framed this qualitative study. Findings were explored alongside contemporary published reports to make recommendations for practice and research.

RESULTS

9 patients and 24 health professionals participated. Four themes were found: Powerlessness moving to acceptance; You feel a bit of a pariah; Others need protection, but I need looking after too; Doing Contact Precautions is not easy.

DISCUSSION

CP conflict with the principle of respect for autonomy due to non-adherence to informed consent, and sub-optimal communication. Patients experience healthcare inequality, and discriminatory practices breaching the principle of justice. CP elicit stigma for patients, and moral distress and inter-personal conflict for staff, breaching the principle of non-maleficence. Under the principle of beneficence, pluralistic cost-benefit assessment situates CP as low-value practice.

CONCLUSION

CP challenge organisational culture, professional well-being, and person-centred ethical care. Ethical costs of CP outweigh benefits, obliging policy-makers to reconsider CP in managing MRO-colonised patients.

The presence and potential impact of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: an evidence synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Its presence improves innovation and error prevention. This evidence synthesis had 3 objectives: explore the current literature regarding psychological safety, identify methods used in its assessment and investigate for evidence of consequences of a psychologically safe environment.

METHODS

We searched multiple trial registries through December 2018. All studies addressing psychological safety within healthcare workers were included and reviewed for methodological limitations. A thematic analysis approach explored the presence of psychological safety. Content analysis was utilised to evaluate potential consequences.

RESULTS

We included 62 papers from 19 countries. The thematic analysis demonstrated high and low levels of psychological safety both at the individual level in study participants and across the studies themselves. There was heterogeneity in responses across all studies, limiting generalisable conclusions about the overall presence of psychological safety. A wide range of methods were used. Twenty-five used qualitative methodology, predominantly semi-structured interviews. Thirty quantitative or mixed method studies used surveys. Ten studies inferred that low psychological safety negatively impacted patient safety. Nine demonstrated a significant relationship between psychological safety and team outcomes. The thematic analysis allowed the development of concepts beyond the content of the original studies. This analytical process provided a wealth of information regarding facilitators and barriers to psychological safety and the development of a model demonstrating the influence of situational context.

DISCUSSION

This evidence synthesis highlights that whilst there is a positive and demonstrable presence of psychological safety within healthcare workers worldwide, there is room for improvement. The variability in methods used demonstrates scope to harmonise this. We draw attention to potential consequences of both high and low psychological safety. We provide novel information about the influence of situational context on an individual's psychological safety and offer more detail about the facilitators and barriers to psychological safety than seen in previous reviews. There is a risk of participation bias - centres involved in safety research may be more aligned to these ideals. The data in this synthesis are useful for institutions looking to improve psychological safety by providing a framework from which modifiable factors can be identified.

The role of managers in promoting good hand hygiene in a Finnish tertiary care hospital

BACKGROUND

Hospital managers play an essential role in implementing strategies to promote good hand hygiene (HH) among health care workers. We investigated the managers' views on their roles, challenges and developmental ideas in promoting good HH practice.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study with an online survey of both medical and nursing managers was conducted within a single tertiary care hospital in Finland. Three open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 78 managers out of 168 responded to the survey (response rate 46%). Managers helped promote HH practices by enabling the proper environment for adherence to good HH, visible commitment, and using various means to instruct staff about HH. Challenges included the acute hospital setting and practical problems related to the managers' numerous responsibilities. Developmental ideas included information communication technology applications for monitoring HH as an indicator of the quality of care, versatile responses to HH audits, and clarifying the roles of different management levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Managers are committed to and use various methods to promote HH. Managers would benefit from information communication technology applications to provide easy and targeted information regarding compliance with HH.

Speaking up about patient safety in psychiatric hospitals - a cross-sectional survey study among healthcare staff

Speaking up is an important communication strategy to prevent patient harm. The aim of this study was to examine speak up-related behaviour and climate for the first time in psychiatric hospitals. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare workers (HCWs) in six psychiatric hospitals with nine sites in Switzerland. Measures assessed speak up-related behaviour with 11 items organized in three scales (the frequency of perceived safety concerns, the frequency of withholding voice, and the frequency of speaking up). Speak up-related climate was assessed by 11 items organized in 3 subscales (psychological safety for speaking up, encouraging environment for speaking up, and resignation). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability, correlations and multiple regression analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and analysis of variance for comparing mean scores between professional groups. A total of 817 questionnaires were completed (response rate: 23%). In different items, 45%-65% of HCWs reported perceived safety concerns at least once during the past four weeks. Withholding voice was reported by 13-25% of HCWs, and speaking up was reported by 53%-72% of HCWs. Systematic differences in scores were found between professional groups (nurses, doctors, psychologists) and hierarchical groups (lower vs higher status). The vignette showed that hierarchical level and perceived risk of harm for the patient were significant predictors for the self-reported likelihood to speak up. Situations triggering safety concerns occur frequently in psychiatric hospitals. Speaking up and voicing concerns should be further promoted as an important safety measure.

Organisational communication as trespass: a patient safety perspective

Purpose

Significant, sustained improvement in patient safety has proved an intractable goal. Attempts to address persistent problems have largely focused on technical solutions to issues conceptualised as clinical, cultural or system based. While communication is at the core of many remediation strategies, the focus has remained largely on communication between clinicians or between clinicians and patients, and on creating centralised guidelines as communicative mechanisms to transmit approved practice. Yet, current attempts at improvement have had limited impact. The purpose of this paper is to highlight vital new ways of conceptualising and exploring the relations and actions that are meant to constitute safety within organisations.

Design/methodology/approach

Utilising theory from social sciences, the authors reconceptualise trespass and transgression, traditionally positioned as infringements, as acts of resistance: mechanisms for intrusion which intentionally or unintentionally disrupt the territorial claims of professions and organisations to enhance patient safety.

Findings

Drawing on the literature, research and professional experience, two forms of trespass are discussed: the intrusion of largely invisible and understudied ancillary staff into the world of clinicians; and the use of workarounds by clinicians themselves. In both cases, transgressors intend to increase rather than decrease patient safety and may, upon further examination, prove to do so.

Originality/value

Trespasses and transgressions considered in this light offer the opportunity to make visible people, relationships and actions which have previously remained hidden in our understanding of, and therefore proposed solutions to, patient safety.

Speaking up culture of medical students within an academic teaching hospital: Need of faculty working in patient safety

BACKGROUND

Speaking up behavior is a manifestation the culture of safety in an organization; however, withholding voice is commonly observed. Within one academic teaching hospital, it was the aim to assess students' speaking up behaviors and perceived culture in order to stimulation of the academic development in terms of patient safety.

METHODS

Survey amongst medical students using a validated questionnaire. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

326 individuals completed the questionnaire (response rate 24%). 37% of responders were in their 5th- 6th clinical term, 32% were in their 7th-8th term and 31% were in the 9th-12th term. 69% of students had a specific safety concern in the past four weeks, 48% had observed an error and 68% noticed the violation of a patient safety rule. Though students perceived specific patient safety concerns, 56% did not speak up in a critical situation. All predefined barriers seemed to play an important role in inhibiting students' voicing concerns. The scores on the psychological safety scale were overall moderately favourable. Students felt little encouraged by colleagues and, in particular, by supervisors to speak up.

CONCLUSION

Speaking up behaviour of students was assessed for the first time in an Austrian academic teaching hospital. The higher the term the more frequent students reported perceived patient safety concerns or rule violations and withholding voice. These results suggest the need to adapt the curriculum concept of the faculty in order to address patient safety as a relevant topic.

Improving safety through speaking up: An ethical and financial imperative

BACKGROUND

Fostering a culture that empowers staff to speak up when concerned about the quality or safety of patient care is both an ethically¹ and economically² responsible endeavor. The Michigan Health & Hospital Association (MHA) Keystone Center has implemented the Speak-Up! Award program that acknowledges frontline health care staff for voicing their concerns and making care safer. The objective of this effort was to advance patient safety in Keystone Center member organizations through widespread, measurable culture improvement. After extensive data collection and analysis, there was a discernable improvement in culture survey results across a 2-year period coinciding with the launch and sustainment of the award program. Furthermore, in an effort to demonstrate the power of speaking up among staff, the Keystone Center applied a cost-savings framework to the types of harm avoided. Results from the cost-savings analysis suggest that each instance of speaking up by staff saves patients, families, and health care organizations an average of more than $13,000.

METHODS

Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award nominations were submitted through an electronic form that collects open, closed, and Likert-type question responses, producing a data array on type and severity of harm prevented, as well as the difficulty and magnitude of the decision to speak up. All data were then coded by harm type and subsequently applied to a tailored version of the cost-savings estimation framework used in the Great Lakes Partnership for Patients Hospital Improvement and Innovation Network. Safety culture was measured through the use of a survey instrument called the Safety, Communication, Operational Reliability, and Engagement (SCORE) instrument.

RESULTS

The Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award program received 416 nominations across the 2-year study period, of which 62% (n = 258) were coded as a specific harm type. Adverse drug events (n = 153), imaging errors (n = 42), and specimen errors (n = 27) were the most common harm types prevented by speaking up. After applying the cost-savings framework to these data, it is estimated that for every instance of speaking up, approximately $13,000 in total expenses were avoided, which is in line with the findings from a report on the economic impact of medical errors sponsored by the Society of Actuaries.³ Furthermore, culture survey results improved by 6% between 2015 and 2017, coinciding with the Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award program.

CONCLUSIONS

The Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award has proven to be a valuable tool in recognizing staff awareness and willingness to raise concerns about quality and safety in health care. Data analysis from this program presents evidence that fostering a psychologically safe culture of speaking up yields fiscal and humanistic returns, both of which are crucial to sustainable, meaningful progress in safety and quality. However, further research is required to adequately gauge the degree to which safety culture improvement is proportional to cost savings.

Speaking Up about Patient Safety in Perioperative Care: Differences between Academic and Nonacademic Hospitals in Austria and Switzerland

Purpose of the Study: In perioperative care, communication about patient safety concerns is both difficult and valuable. Research into speaking up has mostly been conducted in single countries; the aim of this study was to compare speaking up-related climate and behaviors in academic and nonacademic hospitals. Materials and Methods: The study is based on two surveys conducted in Austria and Switzerland. The Swiss survey was conducted in five nonacademic hospitals, the Austrian survey in one university hospital. Results: 768 questionnaires were returned (nonacademic: n = 360; response rate: 37%; academic: n = 408; response rate: 32%). There were differences (p < 0.001) concerning speaking up episodes (at least one episode of speaking up in the past four weeks) between nonacademic hospitals (68%) and the academic hospital (96%). Withholding voice was reported by 32% of nonacademic and 43% of academic staff (p = 0.003). The speak up-related climate in the Swiss sample was more positive. Nurses compared to doctors scored higher on all items of the "resignation scale." Important differences emerged in ratings of a clinical scenario of missed hand disinfection: Nonacademic health-care workers perceived the risk of harm for patients higher compared to academic (5.3 vs. 2.5; p < 0.001). Responders higher in hierarchy felt better with speaking up in nonacademic hospitals. Conclusions: The study is one of the first to address differences in academic and nonacademic hospitals in speaking up behaviors and demonstrated differences. This analysis helps to put local data in perspective and to target further activities for improvement.