Pediatric Trainees' Speaking Up About Unprofessional Behavior and Traditional Patient Safety Threats

Employee voice in healthcare: a systematic review

PURPOSE

We aim to advance our understanding by examining voices related to employees' own interests and associated outcomes for employees and healthcare organizations. Patient safety reviews do not explore contextual factors such as organizational or professional cultures and regulatory environments in depth, and arguments for overcoming barriers to voice in health are underdeveloped. The research has largely developed in separate literature (various subdisciplines of management and the health field), and we outline the divergent emphases and opportunities for integration with the aim of investigating all relevant contextual factors and providing guidance on best practice informed by multiple disciplines.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A systematic approach was taken to gathering and reviewing articles, and coding and reporting are in line with the most recent Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (Rethlefsen et al., 2021).

FINDINGS

We identified a range of facilitators, barriers and outcomes of employee interest voice at different levels (organizational, leadership, team or individual) in a healthcare context. We identify various theoretical, methodological and knowledge gaps, and we suggest several ways in which these can be addressed in future research efforts.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

We make multiple contributions to both theory and practice, including highlighting the importance and implications of integrating disciplinary approaches, broadening context, improving research design and exploring under-researched samples and topics. This information is essential in providing a more comprehensive model of healthcare voice and to shifting management focus to include all forms of employee voice in healthcare for the benefit of staff and patients.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

We make multiple contributions to both theory and practice including highlighting the importance of integrating disciplinary approaches, broadening context to include employee interest issues, improving research design and exploring under-researched samples and topics. This information is essential in providing a more comprehensive model of health care voice and to shifting management focus to take a more inclusive view of employee voice in healthcare for the benefit of staff as well as patients.

Bad behavior in healthcare: an insidious threat to patients, staff, and organizations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

'Bad' or unprofessional behavior (UPB) destroys communication, teamwork, and professional wellbeing, presenting a significant threat to patients and staff. Understanding what constitutes 'bad' or UPB and creating broad accountability for its cessation is imperative to patient-centered care and the survival of the multidisciplinary health workforce.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite organizational and legislative commitments to provide well tolerated work environments, UPB is endemic in healthcare and continues to harm patients, staff, and organizations. Historically, categories of UPB have been researched separately which dilutes the problem. Typically, these behaviors cluster, are interchangeable, and are committed by same perpetrators. Women, junior staff, and minority groups remain the most prevalent targets. Even low intensity UPBs among health staff dramatically impacts risk to patient lives, limits quality care, and destroys staff wellbeing. Targeted interventions must address all five roles impacted by UPBs: the target, patients, bystanders, the perpetrator, and the organization to effectively eliminate UPBs. Organizational leaders must demonstrate and uphold organizational values and be swift in addressing UPB to limit the impact on teams and patients.

SUMMARY

UPB in the healthcare setting presents a multifactorial threat to patients, staff, and organizations. To ensure the delivery of high-quality patient care, and the wellbeing of the health workforce it is crucial to understand the insidious impact of UPB and target interventions across all five roles.

Associations between medical students' stress, academic burnout and moral courage efficacy

BACKGROUND

Medical students, especially during the clinical years, are often exposed to breaches of safety and professionalism. These contradict personal and professional values exposing them to moral distress and to the dilemma of whether and how to act. Acting requires moral courage, i.e., overcoming fear to maintain one's core values and professional obligations. It includes speaking up and "doing the right thing" despite stressors and risks (e.g., humiliation). Acting morally courageously is difficult, and ways to enhance it are needed. Though moral courage efficacy, i.e., individuals' belief in their capability to act morally, might play a significant role, there is little empirical research on the factors contributing to students' moral courage efficacy. Therefore, this study examined the associations between perceived stress, academic burnout, and moral courage efficacy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study among 239 medical students who completed self-reported questionnaires measuring perceived stress, academic burnout ('exhaustion,' 'cynicism,' 'reduced professional efficacy'), and moral courage efficacy (toward others' actions and toward self-actions). Data analysis via Pearson's correlations, regression-based PROCESS macro, and independent t-tests for group differences.

RESULTS

The burnout dimension of 'reduced professional efficacy' mediated the association between perceived stress and moral courage efficacy toward others' actions. The burnout dimensions 'exhaustion' and 'reduced professional efficacy' mediated the association between perceived stress and moral courage efficacy toward self-actions.

CONCLUSIONS

The results emphasize the importance of promoting medical students' well-being-in terms of stress and burnout-to enhance their moral courage efficacy. Medical education interventions should focus on improving medical students' professional efficacy since it affects both their moral courage efficacy toward others and their self-actions. This can help create a safer and more appropriate medical culture.

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.