Whistleblowing Need not Occur if Internal Voices Are Heard: From Deaf Effect to Hearer Courage: Comment on "Cultures of Silence and Cultures of Voice: The Role of Whistleblowing in Healthcare Organisations"

Abuse of social care clients committed by nurses and other social service employees-Analysis of employees' reports

AIM

The aim of the study was to describe the alleged abuse of social care clients committed by nurses and other social services employees and actions as well as sanctions that followed the alleged abuse.

DESIGN

A retrospective study using a descriptive qualitative analysis.

METHODS

The data comprised mandatory reports made by social service employees under the Social Welfare Act. This study focused on the reported abuses of clients (n = 75) by social services employees from 11 October 2016 to 31 December 2020 in Finland. The data were analysed using inductive content analysis and quantification.

RESULTS

The majority of the reports were submitted practical nurses and other nursing personnel and by registered nurses. The severity of the abuse was most often mild or moderate. The most common abusers were nurses. The types of alleged abuse committed by professionals were as follows: (1) neglect of care, (2) physical violence/strong-arm treatments, (3) neglect of hygiene, (4) inappropriate or threatening behaviour and (5) sexual abuse. The actions and sanctions that followed the alleged abuse were: (1) discussing the situation together, requesting an explanation, initiating hearing or defining developmental measures, (2) initiating disciplinary actions and providing verbal or written warnings, (3) dismissing or terminating the employee and (4) initiating a police investigation.

CONCLUSION

Nurses are an important group working in social services and might also be involved in cases of abuse.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

It is important that risks, wrongdoings and abuses are reported. Transparent reporting indicates strong professional ethics.

IMPACT

Knowledge about abuse in social services from the viewpoint of nursing is important for ensuring the quality and safety of services.

REPORTING METHOD

The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guideline was followed.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Middle manager responses to hospital co-workers' unprofessional behaviours within the context of a professional accountability culture change program: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

The critical role that middle managers play in enacting organisational culture change designed to address unprofessional co-worker behaviours has gone largely unexplored. We aimed to explore middle managers' perspectives on i) whether they speak up when they or their team members experience unprofessional behaviours (UBs); ii) how concerns are handled; iii) the outcomes; and iv) the role of a professional accountability culture change program (known as Ethos) in driving change.

METHODS

Qualitative, constructivist approach. Five metropolitan hospitals in Australia which had implemented Ethos. Purposive sampling was used to invite middle-level managers from medicine, nursing, and non-clinical support services. Semi-structured interviews conducted remotely. Inductive, reflexive thematic and descriptive thematic analyses undertaken using NVivo.

RESULTS

Thirty interviews (approximately 60 min; August 2020 to May 2021): Nursing (n = 12), Support Services (n = 10), and Medical (n = 8) staff, working in public (n = 18) and private (n = 12) hospitals. One-third (n = 10) had a formal role in Ethos. All middle managers (hearers) had experienced the raising of UBs by their team (speakers). Themes representing reasons for ongoing UBs were: staying silent but active; history and hierarchy; and double-edged swords. The Ethos program was valued as a confidential, informal, non-punitive system but required improvements in profile and effectiveness. Participants described four response stages: i) determining if reports were genuine; ii) taking action depending on the speaker's preference, behaviour factors (type, frequency, impact), if the person was known/unknown; iii) exploring for additional information; and iv) addressing either indirectly (e.g., change rosters) or directly (e.g., become a speaker).

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing UBs requires an organisational-level approach beyond supporting staff to speak up, to include those hearing and addressing UBs. We propose a new hearer's model that details middle managers' processes after a concern is raised, identifying where action can be taken to minimise avoidant behaviours to improve hospital culture, staff and patient safety.

Speaking up during the COVID-19 pandemic: Nurses' experiences of organizational disregard and silence

AIM

To critically examine nurses' experiences of speaking up during COVID-19 and the consequences of doing so.

DESIGN

Longitudinal qualitative study.

METHODS

Participants were purposively sampled to represent differing geographical locations, specialities, settings and redeployment experiences. They were interviewed (remotely) between July 2020 and April 2022 using a semi-structured interview topic guide.

RESULTS

Three key themes were identified inductively from our analysis including: (1) Under threat: The ability to speak up or not; (2) Risk tolerance and avoidance: Consequences of speaking up; and (3) Deafness and hostility: Responses to speaking up. Nurses reported that their attempts to speak up typically focused on PPE, patient safety and redeployment. Findings indicate that when NHS Trusts and community services initiated their pandemic response policies, nurses' opportunities to speak up were frequently thwarted.

CONCLUSION

Accounts presented in this article include nurses' feeling a sense of futility or of suffering in silence in relation to speaking up. Nurses also fear the consequences of speaking up. Those who did speak up encountered a 'deaf' or hostile response, leaving nurses feeling disregarded by their organization. This points to missed opportunities to learn from those on the front line.

IMPACT

Speaking up interventions need to focus on enhancing the skills to both speak up, and respond appropriately, particularly when power, hierarchy, fear and threat might be concerned.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Nurses working clinically during COVID-19 were involved in the development of this study. Participants were also involved in the development of our interview topic guide and comments obtained from the initial survey helped to shape the study design.

The principle of double effect and external whistleblowing in nursing

Nurses are generally expected to raise concerns when a harm or wrongdoing is committed against patients. Should their concerns not be adequately addressed, then nurses may take the decision to engage in external whistleblowing. Given that it could have a negative effect on the health care organization or service, nurses may question whether they should engage in external whistleblowing. Consequently, is there an ethical criterion to discern whether the negative effect on the health care organization or service is ethically permissible? This paper argues for the suitability of the Principle of Double Effect as an ethical criterion. The position of this paper is that external whistleblowing by a nurse when understood as an advocacy act with two effects (i.e. the effect of defending a patient and the further negative effect on the health care organization or service) can be ethically permissible through meeting the conditions of the Principle of Double Effect.

Impact of organizational silence and favoritism on nurse's work outcomes and psychological well-being

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to assess the impacts of organizational silence and favoritism on work outcomes and psychological wellbeing among nurses working in hospitals.

BACKGROUND

Literature on the organizational climate among nurses in hospital settings is limited, particularly on favoritism and organizational silence and their effect on nurses.

METHODS

Purposive sampling was used to gather 549 registered nurses who participated in this cross-sectional study. Standardized self-report questionnaires were used to gather the necessary data.

RESULTS

Years in the nursing profession (β = .028, P < .001), location of work (β = 0.481, P < .001), and facility size (β = 0.451, P < .001) strongly predicted organizational silence, while years in the present unit (β = 0.020, P = .022) and last shift length (β = 0.200, P = .012) predicted favoritism. Favoritism (β = 0.226, P = .028) significantly influenced turnover intention in nurses.

CONCLUSION

Higher levels of favoritism within the organization are strongly linked with nurses' turnover intention. Few individual and organizational variables predicted organizational silence and favoritism.

IMPLICATIONS TO NURSING MANAGEMENT

The results of this study provide an insight to the effects of organizational silence and favoritism towards nurses' work outcomes and psychological wellbeing. Improving the channels of communication among the healthcare team is vital to promote inclusivity among healthcare workers and enhance organizational viability.

Whistleblowing over patient safety and care quality: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to review existing research on whistleblowing in healthcare in order to develop an evidence base for policy and research.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A narrative review, based on systematic literature protocols developed within the management field.

FINDINGS

The authors identify valuable insights on the factors that influence healthcare whistleblowing, and how organizations respond, but also substantial gaps in the coverage of the literature, which is overly focused on nursing, has been largely carried out in the UK and Australia, and concentrates on the earlier stages of the whistleblowing process.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The review identifies gaps in the literature on whistleblowing in healthcare, but also draws attention to an unhelpful lack of connection with the much larger mainstream literature on whistleblowing.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Despite the limitations to the existing literature important implications for practice can be identified, including enhancing employees' sense of security and providing ethics training.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This paper provides a platform for future research on whistleblowing in healthcare, at a time when policymakers are increasingly aware of its role in ensuring patient safety and care quality.

Understanding the knowledge gaps in whistleblowing and speaking up in health care: narrative reviews of the research literature and formal inquiries, a legal analysis and stakeholder interviews

Background

There is compelling evidence to suggest that some (or even many) NHS staff feel unable to speak up, and that even when they do, their organisation may respond inappropriately.

Objectives

The specific project objectives were (1) to explore the academic and grey literature on whistleblowing and related concepts, identifying the key theoretical frameworks that can inform an understanding of whistleblowing; (2) to synthesise the empirical evidence about the processes that facilitate or impede employees raising concerns; (3) to examine the legal framework(s) underpinning whistleblowing; (4) to distil the lessons for whistleblowing policies from the findings of Inquiries into failings of NHS care; (5) to ascertain the views of stakeholders about the development of whistleblowing policies; and (6) to develop practical guidance for future policy-making in this area.

Methods

The study comprised four distinct but interlocking strands: (1) a series of narrative literature reviews, (2) an analysis of the legal issues related to whistleblowing, (3) a review of formal Inquiries related to previous failings of NHS care and (4) interviews with key informants.

Results

Policy prescriptions often conceive the issue of raising concerns as a simple choice between deciding to ‘blow the whistle’ and remaining silent. Yet research suggests that health-care professionals may raise concerns internally within the organisation in more informal ways before utilising whistleblowing processes. Potential areas for development here include the oversight of whistleblowing from an independent agency; early-stage protection for whistleblowers; an examination of the role of incentives in encouraging whistleblowing; and improvements to criminal law to protect whistleblowers. Perhaps surprisingly, there is little discussion of, or recommendations concerning, whistleblowing across the previous NHS Inquiry reports.

Limitations

Although every effort was made to capture all relevant papers and documents in the various reviews using comprehensive search strategies, some may have been missed as indexing in this area is challenging. We interviewed only a small number of people in the key informant interviews, and our findings may have been different if we had included a larger sample or informants with different roles and responsibilities.

Conclusions

Current policy prescriptions that seek to develop better whistleblowing policies and nurture open reporting cultures are in need of more evidence. Although we set out a wide range of issues, it is beyond our remit to convert these concerns into specific recommendations: that is a process that needs to be led from elsewhere, and in partnership with the service. There is also still much to learn regarding this important area of health policy, and we have highlighted a number of important gaps in knowledge that are in need of more sustained research.

Future work

A key area for future research is to explore whistleblowing as an unfolding, situated and interactional process and not just a one-off act by an identifiable whistleblower. In particular, we need more evidence and insights into the tendency for senior managers not to hear, accept or act on concerns about care raised by employees.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Institutional Betrayal and Gaslighting: Why Whistle-Blowers Are So Traumatized

Despite whistle-blower protection legislation and healthcare codes of conduct, retaliation against nurses who report misconduct is common, as are outcomes of sadness, anxiety, and a pervasive loss of sense of worth in the whistle-blower. Literature in the field of institutional betrayal and intimate partner violence describes processes of abuse strikingly similar to those experienced by whistle-blowers. The literature supports the argument that although whistle-blowers suffer reprisals, they are traumatized by the emotional manipulation many employers routinely use to discredit and punish employees who report misconduct. "Whistle-blower gaslighting" creates a situation where the whistle-blower doubts her perceptions, competence, and mental state. These outcomes are accomplished when the institution enables reprisals, explains them away, and then pronounces that the whistle-blower is irrationally overreacting to normal everyday interactions. Over time, these strategies trap the whistle-blower in a maze of enforced helplessness. Ways to avoid being a victim of whistle-blower gaslighting, and possible sources of support for victims of whistle-blower gaslighting are provided.