A behavioural study of obedience in health professional students

Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (IPECP) is a field of study suggested to improve team functioning and patient safety. However, even interprofessional teams are susceptible to group pressures which may inhibit speaking up (positive deviance). Obedience is one group pressure that can inhibit positive deviance leading to negative patient outcomes. To examine the influence of obedience to authority in an interprofessional setting, an experimental simulated clinical scenario was conducted with Respiratory Therapy (RT) (n = 40) and Advanced Care Paramedic (ACP) (n = 20) students. In an airway management scenario, it was necessary for students to challenge an authority, a senior anesthesiologist, to prevent patient harm. In a 2 × 2 design cognitive load and an interventional writing task designed to increase positive deviance were tested. The effect of individual characteristics, including Moral Foundations, and displacement of responsibility were also examined. There was a significant effect for profession and cognitive load: RT students demonstrated lower levels of positive deviance in the low cognitive load scenario than students in other conditions. The writing task did not have a significant effect on RT or ACP students' behaviour. The influence of Moral Foundations differed from expectations, In Group Loyalty was selected as a negative predictor of positive deviance while Respect for Authority was not. Displacement of responsibility was influential for some participants thought not for all. Other individual variables were identified for further investigation. Observational analysis of the simulation videos was conducted to obtain further insight into student behaviour in a compliance scenario. Individual differences, including experience, should be considered when providing education and training for positive deviance. Simulation provides an ideal setting to use compliance scenarios to train for positive deviance and for experimentation to study interprofessional team behaviour.

Associations of form and function of speaking up in anaesthesia: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Speaking up with concerns in the interest of patient safety has been identified as important for the quality and safety of patient care. The study objectives were to identify how anaesthesia care providers speak up, how their colleagues react to it, whether there is an association among speak up form and reaction, and how this reaction is associated with further speak up.

METHODS

Data were collected over 3 months at a single centre in Switzerland by observing 49 anaesthesia care providers while performing induction of general anaesthesia in 53 anaesthesia teams. Speaking up and reactions to speaking up were measured by event-based behaviour coding.

RESULTS

Instances of speaking up were classified as opinion (59.6%), oblique hint (37.2%), inquiry (30.7%), and observation (16.7%). Most speak up occurred as a combination of different forms. Reactions to speak up included short approval (36.5%), elaboration (35.9%), no verbal reaction (26.3%), or rejection (1.28%). Speaking up was implemented in 89.1% of cases. Inquiry was associated with an increased likelihood of recipients discussing the respective issue (odds ratio [OR]=13.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-31.5; P<0.0001) and with a decreased likelihood of implementing the speak up during the same induction (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88; P=0.03). Reacting with elaboration to the first speak up was associated with decreased further speak up during the same induction (relative risk [RR]=0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.83; P=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides insights into the form and function of speaking up in clinical environments and points to a perceived dilemma of speaking up via questions.

"A debriefer must be neutral" and other debriefing myths: a systemic inquiry-based qualitative study of taken-for-granted beliefs about clinical post-event debriefing

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to identify taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions about use, costs, and facilitation of post-event debriefing. These myths prevent the ubiquitous uptake of post-event debriefing in clinical units, and therefore the identification of process, teamwork, and latent safety threats that lead to medical error. By naming these false barriers and assumptions, the authors believe that clinical event debriefing can be implemented more broadly.

METHODS

We interviewed an international sample of 37 clinicians, educators, scholars, researchers, and healthcare administrators from hospitals, universities, and healthcare organizations in Western Europe and the USA, who had a broad range of debriefing experience. We adopted a systemic-constructivist approach that aimed at exploring in-depth assumptions about debriefing beyond obvious constraints such as time and logistics and focused on interpersonal relationships within organizations. Using circular questions, we intended to uncover new and tacit knowledge about barriers and facilitators of regular clinical debriefings. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a comprehensive process of inductive open coding.

RESULTS

In total, 1508.62 min of interviews (25 h, 9 min, and 2 s) were analyzed, and 1591 answers were categorized. Many implicit debriefing theories reflected current scientific evidence, particularly with respect to debriefing value and topics, the complexity and difficulty of facilitation, the importance of structuring the debriefing and engaging in reflective practice to advance debriefing skills. We also identified four debriefing myths which may prevent post-event debriefing from being implemented in clinical units.

CONCLUSION

The debriefing myths include (1) debriefing only when disaster strikes, (2) debriefing is a luxury, (3) senior clinicians should determine debriefing content, and (4) debriefers must be neutral and nonjudgmental. These myths offer valuable insights into why current debriefing practices are ad hoc and not embedded into daily unit practices. They may help ignite a renewed momentum into the implementation of post-event debriefing in clinical settings.