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

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.

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.

Speaking up about patient safety concerns: view of nursing students

BACKGROUND

"Speaking up" is considered an important patient safety behaviour. The main idea is to voice patient safety concerns; however, several studies revealed that the organisational culture can be obstructive. In previous studies, we already identified barriers for doctors, nurses and medical students. In the current study, we explore how nursing students use "speaking up" during their internship in an academic teaching hospital.

METHODS

Between 2019 and 2020, 212 nursing students were invited to take part in the survey. The validated Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (SUPS-Q) was used to assess speaking up behaviours in nursing students. The SUPS-Q consisted of three behaviour related scales (11 items), three culture related scales (11 items), a question regarding barriers to speak up as well as a clinical vignette assessing a hypothetical speaking up situation.

RESULTS

In total, 118 nursing students took part in the survey (response rate: 56%). Most of them noticed specific safety concerns, observed errors or rule violations. The vignette was seen as very realistic and harmful to the patient. However, the majority responded that they did not speak up and remained silent. They reported a rather discouraging environment and high levels of resignation towards speaking up. However, more advanced students were less likely to speak up than less advanced students (p = 0.027). Most relevant barriers were fear of negative reaction (64%), reaction not predictable (62%) and ineffectiveness (42%).

CONCLUSIONS

Survey results of nursing students imply that speaking-up behaviours and remaining silent are common behaviours and coexist in the same individual. The clinical vignette and barriers to speaking up revealed that a hierarchical system does not support speaking-up behaviours. Organizational development is needed to foster professional teamwork, support attentive listening, encourage critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

Effectiveness of speak-up training programs for clinical nurses: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Speaking up about patient safety concerns is critical when bedside nurses encounter unsafe situations. Training programs that encourage nurses' speaking up behavior have been introduced, but there is limited evidence regarding whether such training leads to behavior change or improves patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to identify the effectiveness of speak-up training programs for clinical nurses, focusing on program content and outcomes.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

METHODS

This study used bibliographic databases of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global for the English language, and NDSL, KCI, RISS, KISS, and DBpia for the Korean language. The literature search used a combination of keywords and subject headings related to speak-up training programs for nurses or any type of nurse training program with an assertiveness component. Training outcomes were evaluated according to the 4-level Kirkpatrick model.

RESULTS

A total of 4808 references were retrieved, of which 21 articles were selected. These 21 studies were conducted in different parts of the world and published from 1981 to 2020. Speak-up training primarily increased some degree of nurses' levels of assertiveness and speak-up behavior, and also led to secondary outcomes such as job stress, work motivation, and communication conflicts. Most studies (n = 19) applied traditional training formats which consisted of multi-session lectures and practice, whereas three studies applied new methodologies such as high-fidelity simulations and online learning. According to the Kirkpatrick model, five studies assessed reactions to speak-up training (level 1), all studies evaluated learning as a result of training (level 2), two studies measured the effect of speak-up training on nurses' behavior (level 3), and one study evaluated nurses' results (level 4) while no studies evaluated patient-level outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Speak-up training for nurses can improve their levels of assertiveness or speak-up behaviors. Despite inconsistent or mixed findings, speak-up training has the potential to improve nurses' psychological well-being, leading to positive organizational performance. New training methods are directed at specialized education for clinical situations. Future speak-up training should consist of training programs based on real clinical situations in which team members participate together to comprehensively evaluate the effect of training on behavioral changes of health professionals as well as patient safety.

The Impact of a 22-Month Multistep Implementation Program on Speaking-Up Behavior in an Academic Anesthesia Department

BACKGROUND

Speaking-up is a method of assertive communication that increases patient safety but often encounters barriers. Numerous studies describe programs introducing speaking-up with varying success; the common denominator seems to be the need for a multimodal and sustained approach to achieve the required change in behavior and culture for safer health care.

METHODS

Before implementing a 22-month multistep program for establishing and strengthening speaking-up at our institution, we assessed perceived safety culture using the "Safety Attitudes Questionnaire." After program completion, participants completed parts of the same Safety Attitudes Questionnaire relevant to speaking-up, and preresult and postresult were compared. In addition, levels of speaking-up and assertive communication were compared with a Swiss benchmark using results from the "Speaking-up About Patient Safety Questionnaire."

RESULTS

Safety Attitudes Questionnaire scores were significantly higher after program completion in 2 of 3 answered questions (median [first quartile, third quartile), 5.0 [4.0, 5.0] versus 4.0 [4.0, 5.0], P = 0.0002, and 5.0 [4.0, 5.0] versus 4.0 [4.0, 4.0] P = 0.002; n = 34). Our composite score on the Speaking-up About Patient Safety Questionnaire was significantly higher (mean ± SD, 5.9 ± 0.7 versus 5.2 ± 1.0; P < 0.001) than the benchmark (n = 65).

CONCLUSIONS

A long-term multimodal program for speaking-up was successfully implemented. Attitude and climate toward safety generally improved, and postprogram perceived levels of assertive communication and speaking-up were higher than the benchmark. These results support current opinion that multimodal programs and continued effort are required, but that speaking-up can indeed be strengthened.

Studies on the second victim phenomenon and other related topics in the pan-European environment: The experience of ERNST Consortium members

Background

Patient safety is a priority worldwide. When things go wrong in the provision of patient care, the healthcare professionals involved can be psychologically affected (second victims, SVs). Recently, different initiatives have been launched to address this phenomenon.

Aim

To identify through the ERNST Pan-European Consortium the current study lines in Europe on SVs and other topics related to how the lack of well-being of healthcare professionals can affect the quality of care.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted based on an ad hoc online survey. All 82 academics and clinicians who had formalized their membership to the COST Action 19113 by September 2020 and represented 27 European and one neighboring country were invited to participate. The survey consisted of 19 questions that explored the participants’ scientific profile, their interests, and previous experiences in the SVs’ topic, and related areas of work in Europe.

Results

Seventy (85.4%) COST Action members responded to the survey. Thirty-seven (37.1%) had conducted SV studies in the past or were doing so at the moment of the survey. Seventeen participants were involved in implementing interventions to support SVs. Future lines of study included legal issues, open disclosure, training programs, and patient safety curricula.

Conclusions

Studies have been conducted in Europe on the magnitude of the SV phenomenon and the usefulness of some techniques to promote resilience among healthcare professionals. New gaps have been identified. The COST Action 19113 aims to foster European collaboration to reinforce the healthcare professionals’ well-being and thus contribute to patient safety.

Conformity, obedience, and the Better than Average Effect in health professional students

BACKGROUND

Compliance, through conformity and obedience to authority, can produce negative outcomes for patient safety, as well as education. To date, educational interventions for dealing with situations of compliance or positive deviance have shown variable results. Part of the challenge for education on compliance may result from disparities between learners' expectations about their potential for engaging in positive deviance and the actual likelihood of engaging in positive deviance. More specifically, students may demonstrate a Better Than Average Effect (BTAE), the tendency for people to believe they are comparatively better than the average across a wide range of behaviours and skills.

METHODS

Four vignettes were designed and piloted using cognitive interviews, to investigate the BTAE. Conformity and obedience to authority were each addressed with two vignettes. The vignettes were included in a survey distributed to Canadian health professional students across multiple programs at several different institutions during the Winter 2019 semester. Self-evaluation of behaviour was investigated using a one-sample proportion test. Demographic data were investigated using logistic regression to identify predictors of the BTAE.

RESULTS

Participants demonstrated the BTAE for expected behaviour compared to peers for situations of conformity and obedience to authority. Age, sex, and program year were identified as potential predictors for exhibiting the BTAE.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that health professional students expect that they will behave better than average in compliance scenarios. Health professional students are not exempt from this cognitive bias in self-assessment. The results have implications for education on compliance, positive deviance, and patient safety.

Setting the stage for speaking up: psychological safety and directing care in acute care collaboration

Managing a safe and efficient anaesthetic induction within a team involves the challenge of when, if, and how to surface, discuss, and implement the best plan on how to proceed. The Lemke and colleagues study in this issue of the British Journal of Anaesthesia is a unique view into real-world conversations that naturally occur in anaesthesia teams in moments of high task and cognitive load, such as induction of anaesthesia. The study spotlights important small moments of physician, nurse, and trainee team coordination. It illuminates key patterns of conversation in naturally occurring anaesthesia teams, and raises important questions about what the speaking up standard should be and the psychological safety-shaping role consultants play in setting the norms for speaking up.

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.

An Examination of Nurses' Empowerment and Speaking Up During Postanesthesia Clinical Hand Overs

Hierarchical relationships can negatively affect nurses' psychological empowerment and interprofessional hand overs. We explored nurses' perceptions of their psychological empowerment, teamwork, and work engagement; relationships between these concepts during interprofessional clinical hand overs; and observed interactive communication behaviors during hand overs. We used surveys and observations of interprofessional clinical hand overs to collect data from 39 nurses in a postanesthesia care unit in Australia. Nurses reported high scores for psychological empowerment and work engagement. Relationships between empowerment and teamwork (r = 0.41, P = .01) and empowerment and work engagement (r = 0.65, P < .001) were positive and significant. Relationships between nurses' observed communication behaviors and perceptions of empowerment, teamwork, and work engagement were nonsignificant. Additional research is needed to better understand how empowerment, teamwork, and work engagement affect nurses' interactive communication behaviors during interprofessional clinical hand overs in the postanesthesia care unit.

A multi-method exploratory study of health professional students' experiences with compliance behaviours

BACKGROUND

Research in healthcare, including students as participants, has begun to document experiences with negative compliance, specifically conformity and obedience. There is a growing body of experimental and survey literature, however, currently lacking is a direct measure of the frequency at which health professional students have negative experiences with conformity and obedience integrated with psychological factors, the outcomes of negative compliance, and students' perceptions.

METHODS

To develop empirical knowledge about the frequency of negative compliance and student perceptions during health professional education a multi-methods survey approach was used. The survey was administered to health professional students across ten disciplines at four institutions.

RESULTS

The results indicated students regularly experience obedience and conformity and are influenced by impression management and displacement of responsibility. Moral distress was identified as a consistent negative outcome. Student self-reported experiences aligned with the empirical findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present study demonstrate the pervasiveness of experiences with negative compliance during health professional's education along with some attendant psychological factors. The findings have educational and practical implications, as well as pointing to the need for further integration of social and cognitive psychology in explaining compliance in healthcare. The results are likely generalizable to a population level however replication is encouraged to better understand the true frequency of negative compliance at a health professional population level.

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.