Patient safety: At the centre of all we do

Factors leading to disruptive behaviours at central hospitals in Harare Metropolitan Province: Radiography managers perspectives

BACKGROUND

The negative consequences of disruptive behaviours involving healthcare workers threatens the institution's image, staff morale, finances, and patient safety. While all kinds of health organisations or settings are potentially exposed to disruptive behaviours, some are at higher risk than others because of both environmental and cultural factors. Such risk should be assessed having regard to the specific situation and conditions in which each healthcare organization operates.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore radiography manager's perspectives on the environmental and cultural factors leading to DBs involving radiographers at central hospitals in Harare Metropolitan Province.

METHODS

An exploratory qualitative study employing in-depth interviews with 11 radiography managers across five departments at three central hospitals selected by criterion purposive sampling was done. The interview data were analysed using Tesch's method of qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

The key environmental and cultural factors identified included three themes: power hierarchy, work environment and reporting framework. Power hierarchy comprised categories, superiority, professional boundaries and representation. The work environment incorporated categories, trust in leadership, burnout and fatigue and remuneration. Lastly, reporting framework included categories, lack of protocol and reporting culture.

CONCLUSION

Radiography managers believe that environmental factors play a bigger role in leading to disruptive behaviours that involve radiographers at central hospitals in Harare Metropolitan Province. This underscores the need for hospital and radiography managers to pay particular emphasis on these when formulating policies and procedures to address these behaviours. Addressing DBs ensures that healthy work environments are promoted which in turn ensures that patients receive optimum and safe care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The paper provides an insight into the environmental and cultural dynamics that may trigger disruptive behaviours involving radiographers. This information is invaluable in formulating policies and procedures for addressing these unprofessional behaviours.

Creating person-al space for unspoken voices during diagnostic medical imaging examinations: a qualitative study

Background

There is emerging interest in person-centred care within a short-lived yet complex medical imaging encounter. This study explored this event from the viewpoint of patients referred for an imaging examination, with a focus on the person and their person-al space.

Methods

We used convenience sampling to conduct semi-structured interviews with 21 patients in a private medical imaging practice in Australia. The first phase of data analysis was conducted deductively, using the six elements of the person-centred, patient-journey framework of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare: transition in; engagement; decisions; well-being; experience; and transition out. This was followed by inductive content analysis to identify overarching themes that span a patient’s journey into, through and out of an imaging encounter.

Results

The transition-in phase began with an appointment and the first point of contact with the imaging department at reception. Engagement focused on patient-radiographer interactions and explanations to the patient on what was going to happen. Decisions related primarily to radiographers’ decisions on how to conduct a particular examination and how to get patient cooperation. Participants’ well-being related to their appreciation of gentle treatment; they also referred to past negative experiences that had made a lasting impression. Transitioning out of the imaging encounter included the sending of the results to the referring medical practitioner. Person-al vulnerabilities emerged as a cross-cutting theme. Patients’ vulnerability, for which they needed reassurance, pertained to uncertainties about the investigation and the possible results. Healthcare professionals were vulnerable because of patient expectations of a certain demeanour and of pressure to perform optimal quality investigations. Lastly, patients’ personal lives, concerns and pressures – their person-al ‘baggage’ – shaped their experience of the imaging encounter.

Conclusion

To add value to the quality of the service they deliver, radiography practitioners should endeavour to create a person-al space for clients. Creating these spaces is complex as patients are not in a position to judge the procedures required by technical imaging protocols and the quality control of equipment. A reflective tool is proposed for radiographers to use in discussions with their team and its leaders on improving person-centred care and the quality of services in their practice.