Factors associated with medical students speaking-up about medical errors: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Training medical students to speak up when they witness a potential error is an important competency for patient safety, but details regarding the barriers that prevent medical students from effectively communicating are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed at exploring the factors affecting medical students' willingness to speak up for patient safety when a medical error was observed.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study at a medical university in Taiwan, and 151 medical students in clinical clerkship completed a survey including demographic characteristics, conflict of interests/social relationship, personal capability, and personality and characteristics of senior staff domains. Data were analyzed using t-test.

RESULTS

Three of five items in the conflict of interests/social relationship domain showed statistically significant importance, including 'I am afraid of being punished' (Mean difference, MD = 0.37; p < 0.01), 'I do not want to break unspoken rules' (MD = 0.55; p < 0.01), and 'I do not want to have bad team relationship' (MD = 0.58; p < 0.01). Two items (perception of knowledge/understanding and communication skills) in the personal capability domain were significantly important to speaking up. Six of 10 items in personality and characteristics of senior staff domain were rated significantly important in deciding to speak up. The top three factors of them were senior personnel with 'Grumpy' personality (MD = 1.20; p < 0.01), 'hierarchy gap' (MD = 1.12; p < 0.01), and senior personnel with 'Stubborn' personality (MD = 1.06; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated medical students' perspectives on barriers to speaking up in the event of medical error. Some factors related to characteristics of senior staff could compromise medical students' ability to speak up in the event of medical error. These results might be important for medical educators in designing personalized educational activities related to medical students' ability to speak up for patient safety.

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.

The presence and potential impact of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: an evidence synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Its presence improves innovation and error prevention. This evidence synthesis had 3 objectives: explore the current literature regarding psychological safety, identify methods used in its assessment and investigate for evidence of consequences of a psychologically safe environment.

METHODS

We searched multiple trial registries through December 2018. All studies addressing psychological safety within healthcare workers were included and reviewed for methodological limitations. A thematic analysis approach explored the presence of psychological safety. Content analysis was utilised to evaluate potential consequences.

RESULTS

We included 62 papers from 19 countries. The thematic analysis demonstrated high and low levels of psychological safety both at the individual level in study participants and across the studies themselves. There was heterogeneity in responses across all studies, limiting generalisable conclusions about the overall presence of psychological safety. A wide range of methods were used. Twenty-five used qualitative methodology, predominantly semi-structured interviews. Thirty quantitative or mixed method studies used surveys. Ten studies inferred that low psychological safety negatively impacted patient safety. Nine demonstrated a significant relationship between psychological safety and team outcomes. The thematic analysis allowed the development of concepts beyond the content of the original studies. This analytical process provided a wealth of information regarding facilitators and barriers to psychological safety and the development of a model demonstrating the influence of situational context.

DISCUSSION

This evidence synthesis highlights that whilst there is a positive and demonstrable presence of psychological safety within healthcare workers worldwide, there is room for improvement. The variability in methods used demonstrates scope to harmonise this. We draw attention to potential consequences of both high and low psychological safety. We provide novel information about the influence of situational context on an individual's psychological safety and offer more detail about the facilitators and barriers to psychological safety than seen in previous reviews. There is a risk of participation bias - centres involved in safety research may be more aligned to these ideals. The data in this synthesis are useful for institutions looking to improve psychological safety by providing a framework from which modifiable factors can be identified.

Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope be used first line for all oral intubations or only in those with a difficult airway? A review of current literature

The purpose of this study was to review literature that looked into the efficacy of the Glidescope video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope in oral endotracheal intubations. We aimed to answer the question 'Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope laryngoscopes be used as first line intubation aids or only in the difficult airway?' A systematic search of electronic databases was made. The inclusion criteria included: Glidescope, video laryngoscope, and Macintosh laryngoscope in human studies. The study aimed to compare first attempt success rate, glottic view and intubation time in papers dating between 2009 and 2017. Eleven trials with a total of 7,919 patients with both difficult and normal airways were included. The trials showed an improvement in first attempt success rate and glottic view with the Glidescope video laryngoscope especially in those with difficult airways. Overall time to intubate showed no significant differences between the Glidescope video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope although it was identified that with increased training and experience with the Glidescope video laryngoscope, intubation time was reduced. Glidescope video laryngoscopes show advantages over the Macintosh laryngoscopes in obtaining better glottic views in those with difficult airways. However its use is not supported in all routine intubations.

Exploring healthcare professionals' perceptions of the anesthesia assistant role and its impact on patients and interprofessional collaboration

To practice interprofessional collaboration (IPC), understanding the roles of each profession in the team is key. Anesthesia assistants (AAs) are a relatively new addition to the Canadian healthcare system. As a result, its role in the delivery of anesthesia care can be misunderstood by other healthcare professionals. Using an exploratory multiple case study design, this article explores healthcare professionals' perceptions of the AA role and its impact on patients and IPC. Sixteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of nine healthcare professions from inside and outside the peri-operative care unit in two urban, acute care, university-affiliated teaching research hospitals in Ontario. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts identified five overarching themes: limited understanding of the AA role, improved patient-centred care, improve IPC and interprofessional education, ongoing challenges, and the future direction for professional growth. Results indicated that despite regular clinical practice collaboration, participants have a limited understanding of AAs in terms of their educational prerequisites, scope of practice, and roles. One reason for this lack of understanding is that there is a high variability of titles and clinical duties for non-physician anesthesia providers. The diverse range of anesthesia services provided by AAs can also become a barrier to the full understanding of their scope of practice and roles. The limited understanding of the AA role was reported as one of AAs' ongoing challenges. It prevents AAs from realising their full scope of practice. Participants suggested that AAs' professional growth should focus on promoting and expanding their role. Understanding other healthcare professionals' perceptions of AAs will assist them to become better ambassadors for their role, and to more effectively promote and practice IPC. Ultimately, this will result in improved interprofessional teamwork to deliver effective and efficient patient care.

Infections and interaction rituals in the organisation: clinician accounts of speaking up or remaining silent in the face of threats to patient safety

Clinician silence in the face of known threats to patient safety is a source of growing concern. Current explanations for the difficulties clinicians have of speaking up are conceptualised at the individual or organisational level, with little attention paid to the space between--the interaction context. Drawing on 103 interviews with clinicians at one hospital in the United States this article examines how clinicians talk about speaking up or not in the face of breaches in infection prevention technique. Accounts are analysed using a microsociological lens as stories of interaction, through which respondents appeal to situational and organisational realities of medical work that serve to justify speaking up or remaining silent. Analysis of these accounts reveals three influences on the decision to speak up, shaped by background conditions in the organisation; mutual focus of attention, interactional path dependence and the presence of an audience. These findings suggest that the decision to speak up in a clinical setting is dynamic, highly context-dependent, embedded in the interaction rituals that suffuse everyday work and constrained by organisational dynamics. This article develops a more sophisticated and distinctly sociological understanding of the reasons why speaking up in healthcare is so difficult.

The non-technical skills used by anaesthetic technicians in critical incidents reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring System between 2002 and 2008

The outcome of critical incidents in the operating theatre has been shown to be influenced by the behaviour of anaesthetic technicians (ATs) assisting anaesthetists, but the specific non-technical skills involved have not been described. We performed a review of critical incidents (n=1433) reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring System between 2002 and 2008 to identify which non-technical skills were used by ATs. The reports were assessed if they mentioned anaesthetic assistance or had the boxes ticked to identify "inadequate assistance" or "absent supervision or assistance". A total of 90 critical incidents involving ATs were retrieved, 69 of which described their use of non-technical skills. In 20 reports, the ATs ameliorated the critical incident, whilst in 46 they exacerbated the critical incident, and three cases had both positive and negative non-technical skills described. Situation awareness was identified in 39 reports, task management in 23, teamwork in 21 and decision-making in two, but there were no descriptions of issues related to leadership, stress or fatigue management. Situation awareness, task management and teamwork appear to be important non-technical skills for ATs in the development or management of critical incidents in the operating theatre. This analysis has been used to support the development of a non-technical skills taxonomy for anaesthetic assistants.

Assessing scrub practitioner non-technical skills: a literature review

A review by Catchpole et al (2009) into the causes and types of harm experienced by the surgical patient emphasised the high risk nature of the perioperative period. Investigations into recent failures at NHS organisations have emphasised the relevance of non-technical skills education in improving clinical performance and patient outcomes. However, scrub practitioner non-technical skills are often developed on a tacit basis, making assessment of performance difficult. This literature review identifies strategies that facilitate assessment of non-technical skills during surgery. Recommendations are made that will assist scrub practitioners in using a validated scrub practitioner non-technical skills assessment framework reliably.

Assessing Nurse Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills in the operating room

BACKGROUND

Incident reporting and fieldwork in operating rooms have shown that some of the errors that arise in anaesthesia relate to inadequate use of non-technical skills. To provide a tool for training and feedback on nurse anaesthetists' non-technical skills, this study aimed to adapt the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) as a behavioural marker system for the formative assessment of nurse anaesthetists' non-technical skills in the operating room.

METHODS

A qualitative approach with focus group interviews was used to identify the non-technical skills of nurse anaesthetists in the operating room. The interview data were transcribed verbatim. Directed content analysis was used to code and sort data deductively into the ANTS categories: task management, team working, situation awareness and decision making. The prototype named Nurse Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (N-ANTS) was presented and discussed in a group of subject matter experts to ensure face validity.

RESULTS

The N-ANTS system consists of the same four categories as ANTS and 15 underlying elements. Three to five good and poor behavioural markers for each element were identified. The headings and definitions of the categories and elements were adjusted to encompass the behavioural markers in N-ANTS. The differences that emerged mainly reflected statements regarding the establishment of role, competence, and task delegation.

CONCLUSION

A behavioural marker system, N-ANTS, for nurse anaesthetists was adapted from a behavioural marker system, ANTS, for anaesthesiologists.

Non-technical skills: enhancing safety in operating theatres (and drilling rigs)

On April 20th 2010, a large Transocean drilling rig called the Deepwater Horizon was operating in the Gulf of Mexico to drill the Macondo well, for the oil company BP. The job was six weeks behind schedule and $58 million over budget and had not been without difficulty: it was a high pressure well, 2.5 miles below the seabed. At 5.45 am, the Halliburton cementing engineer sent an email to say: 'We have completed the job and it went well'. At 9.43 pm, 16 hours later, there was a release of hydrocarbons into the well bore and the drilling rig experienced a catastrophic blowout as the high pressure oil and gas escaped onto the rig and into the ocean. The resulting explosions and fire killed 11 of the crew of 126, injured many more and created an enormous oil spill across the Gulf.

Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: a literature review

Background

Speaking up is important for patient safety, but often, health care professionals hesitate to voice concerns. Understanding the influencing factors can help to improve speaking-up behaviour and team communication. This review focused on health care professionals’ speaking-up behaviour for patient safety and aimed at (1) assessing the effectiveness of speaking up, (2) evaluating the effectiveness of speaking-up training, (3) identifying the factors influencing speaking-up behaviour, and (4) developing a model for speaking-up behaviour.

Methods

Five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for English articles describing health care professionals’ speaking-up behaviour as well as those evaluating the relationship between speaking up and patient safety. Influencing factors were identified and then integrated into a model of voicing behaviour.

Results

In total, 26 studies were identified in 27 articles. Some indicated that hesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor in communication errors and that training can improve speaking-up behaviour. Many influencing factors were found: (1) the motivation to speak up, such as the perceived risk for patients, and the ambiguity or clarity of the clinical situation; (2) contextual factors, such as hospital administrative support, interdisciplinary policy-making, team work and relationship between other team members, and attitude of leaders/superiors; (3) individual factors, such as job satisfaction, responsibility toward patients, responsibility as professionals, confidence based on experience, communication skills, and educational background; (4) the perceived efficacy of speaking up, such as lack of impact and personal control; (5) the perceived safety of speaking up, such as fear for the responses of others and conflict and concerns over appearing incompetent; and (6) tactics and targets, such as collecting facts, showing positive intent, and selecting the person who has spoken up.

Conclusions

Hesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor to communication errors. Our model helps us to understand how health care professionals think about voicing their concerns. Further research is required to investigate the relative importance of different factors.

Physicians criticizing physicians to patients

BACKGROUND

Teamwork is critical to providing excellent healthcare, and effective communication is essential for teamwork. Physicians often discuss patient referrals from other physicians, including referrals from outside their primary institution. Sharing conflicting information or negative judgments of other physicians to patients may be unprofessional. Poor teamwork within healthcare systems has been associated with patient mortality and lower staff well-being.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis explored how physicians talk to patients with advanced cancer about care rendered by other physicians.

DESIGN

Standardized patients (SPs) portraying advanced lung cancer attended covertly recorded visits with consenting oncologists and family physicians.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty community-based oncologists and 19 family physicians had encounters with SPs.

APPROACH

Physician comments about care by other physicians were extracted from transcriptions and analyzed qualitatively. These comments were categorized as Supportive or Critical. We also examined whether there were differences between physicians who provide supportive comments and those who provided critical comments.

KEY RESULTS

Fourteen of the 34 encounters (41 %) included in this analysis contained a total of 42 comments about the patient's previous care. Twelve of 42 comments (29 %) were coded as Supportive, twenty-eight (67 %) as Critical, and two (4 %) as Neutral. Supportive comments attributed positive qualities to another physician or their care. Critical comments included one specialty criticizing another and general lack of trust in physicians.

CONCLUSION

This study described comments by physicians criticizing other physicians to patients. This behavior may affect patient satisfaction and quality of care. Healthcare system policies and training should discourage this behavior.