Emergency Medicine Resident Perception of Abuse by Consultants: Results of a National Survey

Overcoming Obstacles to Develop High-Performance Teams Involving Physician in Health Care Organizations

Many health care organizations struggle and often do not succeed to be high-performance organizations that are not only efficient and effective but also enjoyable places to work. This review focuses on the physician and organizational roles in limiting achievement of a high-performance team in health care organizations. Ten dimensions were constructed and a number of competencies and metrics were highlighted to overcome the failures to: (i) Ensure that the goals, purpose, mission and vision are clearly defined; (ii) establish a supportive organizational structure that encourages high performance of teams; (iii) ensure outstanding physician leadership, performance, goal attainment; and (iv) recognize that medical team leaders are vulnerable to the abuses of personal power or may create a culture of intimidation/fear and a toxic work culture; (v) select a good team and team members—team members who like to work in teams or are willing and able to learn how to work in a team and ensure a well-balanced team composition; (vi) establish optimal team composition, individual roles and dynamics, and clear roles for members of the team; (vii) establish psychological safe environment for team members; (viii) address and resolve interpersonal conflicts in teams; (xi) ensure good health and well-being of the medical staff; (x) ensure physician engagement with the organization. Addressing each of these dimensions with the specific solutions outlined should overcome the constraints to achieving high-performance teams for physicians in health care organizations.

Systematic review of academic bullying in medical settings: dynamics and consequences

PURPOSE

To characterise the dynamics and consequences of bullying in academic medical settings, report factors that promote academic bullying and describe potential interventions.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched EMBASE and PsycINFO for articles published between 1 January 1999 and 7 February 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies conducted in academic medical settings in which victims were consultants or trainees. Studies had to describe bullying behaviours; the perpetrators or victims; barriers or facilitators; impact or interventions. Data were assessed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

We included 68 studies representing 82 349 respondents. Studies described academic bullying as the abuse of authority that impeded the education or career of the victim through punishing behaviours that included overwork, destabilisation and isolation in academic settings. Among 35 779 individuals who responded about bullying patterns in 28 studies, the most commonly described (38.2% respondents) was overwork. Among 24 894 individuals in 33 studies who reported the impact, the most common was psychological distress (39.1% respondents). Consultants were the most common bullies identified (53.6% of 15 868 respondents in 31 studies). Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15 246 respondents in 27 studies). Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9410 victims in 25 studies) reported the bullying, and most (57.5%) did not perceive a positive outcome. Facilitators of bullying included lack of enforcement of institutional policies (reported in 13 studies), hierarchical power structures (7 studies) and normalisation of bullying (10 studies). Studies testing the effectiveness of anti-bullying interventions had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic bullying commonly involved overwork, had a negative impact on well-being and was not typically reported. Perpetrators were most commonly consultants and men across career stages, and victims were commonly women. Methodologically robust trials of anti-bullying interventions are needed.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies (40 of 68) had at least a moderate risk of bias. All interventions were tested in uncontrolled before-after studies.