A Communication Training Program to Encourage Speaking-Up Behavior in Surgical Oncology

Classification of influencing factors of speaking-up behaviour in hospitals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Speaking up among healthcare professionals plays an essential role in improving patient safety and quality of care, yet it remains complex and multifaceted behaviour. Despite awareness of potential risks and adverse outcomes for patients, professionals often hesitate to voice concerns due to various influencing factors. This complexity has encouraged research into the determinants of speaking-up behaviour in hospital settings. This review synthesises these factors into a multi-layered framework. It aims to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the influencing factors, which provides guidance for interventions aimed at fostering environments contributing to speaking up in hospitals.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in November 2024, searching databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Following PRISMA guidelines and the three stages for thematic synthesis, we developed the classification of influencing factors. Out of 1,735 articles identified articles, 413 duplicates were removed, 1,322 titles and abstracts were screened, and 152 full texts (plus six additional articles) were assessed. Ultimately, 45 articles met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The review categorised influencing factors into four categories: individual (29 articles, 64%), relational (21 articles, 47%), contextual (19 articles, 42%), and organisational (26 articles, 58%). These categories encompass motivating, hindering and trade-off factors affecting speaking up among healthcare professionals in hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The multi-layered framework highlights the dynamic interplay of factors influencing speaking up among healthcare professionals. A systems approach is essential for identifying barriers and enablers and designing effective speaking up interventions. This framework serves as a foundation for more focused research and practical guidance, enabling healthcare leaders to address barriers across all categories. By fostering environments that support open communication, organisations can enhance patient safety and quality of care.

Promoting speaking-up behaviours among nurses working in the care for older people: A scoping review

AIM

To explore interventions employed to foster speaking-up behaviours of registered nurses (RNs) working in the care of older people.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

The updated Joann Briggs Institute scoping review methodological guidelines were followed.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched.

RESULTS

A total of 1691 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 11 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Analysis focused upon intervention types, methodologies, speaking up strategies, barriers and effectiveness. Education was the most used intervention.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of published research on successful interventions to promote speaking-up behaviours in the care of older people, particularly relating to poor care practices. Evidence of speaking-up interventions in the residential aged care setting is absent. This highlights the need to develop strategies to support the RN to lead and enable others to raise care concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Developing strategies that enable staff, care recipients and their families to speak up about care concerns is a vital future area for nursing practice development. Nursing leadership of such strategies is central to improving the quality of care for older people, particularly those living in residential aged care.

IMPACT

Older people receiving care should feel respected and be treated humanely. Evidence suggests this is often not the case. This review found a paucity of interventions to promote speaking-up about poor care practices among RNs working in the care of older people. Future research needs to address this, to empower RNs and improve the care afforded to older people.

REPORTING METHOD

The PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 169, 467-473, 2018) were adhered to throughout this scoping review.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution in this review.

Stop the Line: Interventions to Prevent Retained Surgical Items

The surgical team works collaboratively to prevent the occurrence of retained surgical items (RSIs). The purpose of this quality improvement project was to increase compliance with facility policies and improve teamwork skills to prevent the occurrence of RSIs. The project team implemented an evidence-based communication protocol, updated hospital network policies, introduced just-in-time job aids, and facilitated leader support through a daily huddle to address identified practice gaps. The TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire was used to measure the change in staff members' attitudes about teamwork before and after project implementation. Additional process and outcome measures included the number of near misses and actual RSIs, compliance with the daily huddle, and completion of the communication training. Results included improved perceived teamwork attitude scores and zero reports of actual RSI events over 7.5 weeks.

Guidelines in Practice: Team Communication

The perioperative setting is a complex environment requiring interdisciplinary team collaboration to avoid adverse events. To protect the safety of patients and perioperative team members, communication among personnel should be clear and effective. The recently updated AORN "Guideline for team communication" provides perioperative nurses with recommendations on the topic. To promote effective communication in perioperative areas, all personnel should value and commit to a culture of safety. This article discusses recommendations for supporting a culture of safety, developing and implementing an effective hand-off process and surgical safety checklist, and developing education strategies for team communication. It also includes a scenario describing the implementation of a standardized, electronic surgical safety checklist in the OR. Perioperative nurses should review the guideline in its entirety and apply the recommendations for team communication in their working environments.

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.

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.

Patient Safety Over Power Hierarchy: A Scoping Review of Healthcare Professionals' Speaking-up Skills Training

Communication failures in healthcare constitute a major root cause of adverse events and medical errors. Considerable evidence links failures to raise concerns about patient harm in a timely manner with errors in medication administration, hygiene and isolation, treatment decisions, or invasive procedures. Expressing one's concern while navigating the power hierarchy requires formal training that targets both the speaker's emotional and verbal skills and the receiver's listening skills. We conducted a scoping review to examine the scope and components of training programs that targeted healthcare professionals' speaking-up skills. Out of 9,627 screened studies, 14 studies published between 2005 and 2018 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the existing training exclusively relied on one-time training, mostly in simulation settings, involving subjects from the same profession. In addition, most studies implicitly referred to positional power as defined by titles; few addressed other forms of power such as personal resources (e.g., expertise, information). Almost none addressed the emotional and psychological dimensions of speaking up. The existing literature provides limited evidence identifying effective training components that positively affect speaking-up behaviors and attitudes. Future opportunities include examining the role of healthcare professionals' conflict engagement style or leaders' behaviors as factors that promote speaking-up behaviors.

Nurses' Perceptions of Personal Communication Devices in the Perioperative Environment

Personal communication devices (PCDs) support reliable information sharing between clinical personnel to ease workflow processes. Perioperative leaders at a major medical center conducted a long-term quality improvement project evaluating perioperative nurse perceptions regarding PCDs. Perioperative nurses completed two surveys and the investigators conducted an independent group t test (2-tailed) to test for differences in RN perceptions of PCDs from initial use during a pilot study and after the nurses had used the technology for four years. The authors also used qualitative content analysis to assess the qualitative items on the survey. The RNs noted that the PCDs were particularly beneficial when contacting team members for assistance and that response times improved. Overhead pages decreased from 125 per six-hour period to an average of less than one per six-hour period. The perioperative nurses' perceptions of the PCDs have improved four years after implementation.

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.