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

React, reframe and engage. Establishing a receiver mindset for more effective safety negotiations

PURPOSE

The response of the receiver to a voiced patient safety concern is frequently cited as a barrier to health professionals speaking up. The authors describe a novel Receiver Mindset Framework (RMF) to help health professionals understand the importance of their response when spoken up to.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The framework draws on the broader receiver-focussed literature and integrates innovative findings from a series of empirical studies. These studies examined different receiver behaviour within vignettes, retrospective descriptions of real interactions and behaviour in a simulated interaction.

FINDINGS

The authors' findings indicated that speaking up is an intergroup interaction where social identities, context and speaker stance intersect, directly influencing both perceptions of and responses to the message. The authors' studies demonstrated that when spoken up to, health professionals poorly manage their emotions and ineffectively clarify the speaker's concerns. Currently, targeted training for receivers is overwhelmingly absent from speaking-up programmes. The receiver mindset framework provides an evidence-based, healthcare specific, receiver-focussed framework to inform programmes.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Grounded in communication accommodation theory (CAT), the resulting framework shifts speaking up training from being only speaker skill focussed, to training that recognises speaking up as a mutual negotiation between the healthcare speaker and receiver. This framework provides healthcare professionals with a novel approach to use in response to speaking up that enhances their ability to listen, understand and engage in point-of-care negotiations to ensure the physical and psychological safety of patients and staff.

"Asking for help is a strength"-how to promote undergraduate medical students' teamwork through simulation training and interprofessional faculty

The ability to team up and safely work in any kind of healthcare team is a critical asset and should be taught early on in medical education. Medical students should be given the chance to "walk the talk" of teamwork by training and reflecting in teams. Our goal was to design, implement and evaluate the feasibility of a simulation-based teamwork training (TeamSIM) for undergraduate medical students that puts generic teamwork skills centerstage. We designed TeamSIM to include 12 learning objectives. For this pre-post, mixed-methods feasibility study, third-year medical students, organized in teams of 11-12 students, participated and observed each other in eight simulations of different clinical situation with varying degrees of complexity (e.g., deteriorating patient in ward; trauma; resuscitation). Guided by an interprofessional clinical faculty with simulation-based instructor training, student teams reflected on their shared experience in structured team debriefings. Using published instruments, we measured (a) students' reactions to TeamSIM and their perceptions of psychological safety via self-report, (b) their ongoing reflections via experience sampling, and (c) their teamwork skills via behavior observation. Ninety four students participated. They reported positive reactions to TeamSIM (M = 5.23, SD = 0.5). Their mean initial reported level of psychological safety was M = 3.8 (SD = 0.4) which rose to M = 4.3 (SD = 0.5) toward the end of the course [T(21) = -2.8, 95% CI -0.78 to-0.12, p = 0.011 (two-tailed)]. We obtained n = 314 headline reflections from the students and n = 95 from the faculty. For the students, the most frequent theme assigned to their headlines involved the concepts taught in the course such as "10 s for 10 min." For the faculty, the most frequent theme assigned to their headlines were reflections on how their simulation session worked for the students. The faculty rated students' teamwork skills higher after the last compared to the first debriefing. Undergraduate medical students can learn crucial teamwork skills in simulations supported by an experienced faculty and with a high degree of psychological safety. Both students and faculty appreciate the learning possibilities of simulation. At the same time, this learning can be challenging, intense and overwhelming. It takes a team to teach teamwork.

Exposure to incivility does not hinder speaking up: a randomised controlled high-fidelity simulation-based study

BACKGROUND

Speaking up with concerns is critical for patient safety. We studied whether witnessing a civil (i.e. polite, respectful) response to speaking up would increase the occurrence of further speaking up by hospital staff members as compared with witnessing a pseudo-civil (i.e. vague and slightly dismissive) or rude response.

METHODS

In this RCT in a single, large academic teaching hospital, a single simulated basic life support scenario was designed to elicit standardised opportunities to speak up. Participants in teams of two or three were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which the degree of civility in reacting to speaking up was manipulated by an embedded simulated person. Speaking up behaviour was assessed by behaviour coding of the video recordings of the team interactions by applying 10 codes using The Observer XT 14.1. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling.

RESULTS

The sample included 125 interprofessional hospital staff members (82 [66%] women, 43 [34%] men). Participants were more likely to speak up when they felt psychologically safe (γ=0.47; standard error [se]=0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.85; P=0.017). Participants were more likely to speak up in the rude condition than in the other conditions (γ=0.28; se=0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P=0.019). Across conditions, participants spoke up most frequently by structuring inquiry (n=289, 31.52%), proactive (n=240, 26.17%), and reactive (n=148, 16.14%) instruction statements, and gestures (n=139, 15.16%).

CONCLUSION

Our study challenges current assumptions about the interplay of civility and speaking up behaviour in healthcare.