Uncovering, creating or constructing problems? Enacting a new role to support staff who raise concerns about quality and safety in the English National Health Service

Promoting speaking-up behaviours among nurses working in the care for older people: A scoping review

AIM

To explore interventions employed to foster speaking-up behaviours of registered nurses (RNs) working in the care of older people.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

The updated Joann Briggs Institute scoping review methodological guidelines were followed.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched.

RESULTS

A total of 1691 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 11 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Analysis focused upon intervention types, methodologies, speaking up strategies, barriers and effectiveness. Education was the most used intervention.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of published research on successful interventions to promote speaking-up behaviours in the care of older people, particularly relating to poor care practices. Evidence of speaking-up interventions in the residential aged care setting is absent. This highlights the need to develop strategies to support the RN to lead and enable others to raise care concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Developing strategies that enable staff, care recipients and their families to speak up about care concerns is a vital future area for nursing practice development. Nursing leadership of such strategies is central to improving the quality of care for older people, particularly those living in residential aged care.

IMPACT

Older people receiving care should feel respected and be treated humanely. Evidence suggests this is often not the case. This review found a paucity of interventions to promote speaking-up about poor care practices among RNs working in the care of older people. Future research needs to address this, to empower RNs and improve the care afforded to older people.

REPORTING METHOD

The PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 169, 467-473, 2018) were adhered to throughout this scoping review.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution in this review.

Understanding Employee Voice Behavior Through the Use of Digital Voice Channel in Long-Term Care: Protocol for an Embedded Multiple-Case Study

BACKGROUND

Specific challenges in the health care sector, such as hierarchical structures, shortages of nursing staff, and high turnover of nursing staff, can be addressed by a change process of organizational culture into shared governance. Data from business organizations show that the use of digital voice channels provides employee voice. This approach makes concrete the opportunity for employees to raise their voices by answering surveys and making comments in an anonymous forum, which subsequently positively influences staff turnover and sick leave. Since there is no clear understanding of how a digital voice channel can be used in long-term care to address employee voice, a research gap has been identified.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of ADVICE (Understanding Employee Voice Behavior; the acronym for this study) is to understand how the use of a digital voice channel performs in long-term care (residential long-term care and home care facilities). The aim of this study is to understand how the digital voice channel can support staff in making their voices heard and to see what managers need to use the voice channel to change the work environment.

METHODS

An embedded multiple-case study will be used to explore the experiences of 2 health care providers who have already implemented a digital voice channel. ADVICE is organized into two main phases: (1) a scoping review and (2) an embedded multiple-case study. For this purpose, focus group interviews with employees, discursive-dialogical interviews with managers, meeting protocols, and data from the digital voice channel will be analyzed. First, all units of analysis from every embedded unit will be separately analyzed and then comprehensively analyzed to obtain a case vignette from every embedded unit (within-analysis). In the second stage, the analyzed data from the embedded units will be compared with each other in a comparative analysis (cross-analysis).

RESULTS

The results will provide insight into how digital voice channels can be used in long-term care to address employee voice. We expect to find how the digital voice channel can empower nurses to speak up and, consequently, create a better work environment. Data collection began in August 2023, and from a current perspective, the first results are expected in summer 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the results may help to better understand the use of a digital voice channel in the health care sector and its transformative potential for leadership. At the organizational level, research can help to improve the attractiveness of the workplace by understanding how to give employees a voice.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/48601.

Hospital staff reports of coworker positive and unprofessional behaviours across eight hospitals: who reports what about whom?

BACKGROUND

Workplace behaviours of healthcare staff impact patient safety, staff well-being and organisational outcomes. A whole-of-hospital culture change programme, Ethos, was implemented by St. Vincent's Health Australia across eight hospitals. Ethos includes a secure online submission system that allows staff across all professional groups to report positive (Feedback for Recognition) and negative (Feedback for Reflection) coworker behaviours. We analysed these submissions to determine patterns and rates of submissions and identify the coworker behaviours reported.

METHOD

All Ethos submissions between 2017 and 2020 were deidentified and analysed. Submissions include structured data elements (eg, professional role of the reporter and subjects, event and report dates) and a narrative account of the event and coworker behaviours. Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess use and reporting patterns. Coding of the content of submissions was performed to classify types of reported coworker behaviours.

RESULTS

There were a total of 2504 Ethos submissions, including 1194 (47.7%) Recognition and 1310 (52.3%) Reflection submissions. Use of the submission tool was highest among nurses (20.14 submissions/100 nursing staff) and lowest among non-clinical services staff (5.07/100 non-clinical services staff). Nurses were most frequently the subject of Recognition submissions (7.56/100 nurses) while management and administrative staff were the least (4.25/100 staff). Frequently reported positive coworker behaviours were non-technical skills (79.3%, N=947); values-driven behaviours (72.5%, N=866); and actions that enhanced patient care (51.3%, N=612). Medical staff were the most frequent subjects of Reflection submissions (12.59/100 medical staff), and non-clinical services staff the least (4.53/100 staff). Overall, the most frequently reported unprofessional behaviours were being rude (53.8%, N=705); humiliating or ridiculing others (26%, N=346); and ignoring others' opinions (24.6%, N=322).

CONCLUSION

Hospital staff across all professional groups used the Ethos messaging system to report both positive and negative coworker behaviours. High rates of Recognition submissions demonstrate a strong desire of staff to reward and encourage positive workplace behaviours, highlighting the importance of culture change programmes which emphasise these behaviours. The unprofessional behaviours identified in submissions are consistent with behaviours previously reported in surveys of hospital staff, suggesting that submissions are a reliable indicator of staff experiences.

Prosocial voice in the hierarchy of healthcare professionals: the role of emotions after harmful patient safety incidents

PURPOSE

Supporting and nurturing effective communication between healthcare professionals is vital to protect patients from harm. However, not all forms of employee voice are effective. Fear can lead to defensive voice, while the role of other emotions to drive voice behaviour is less well understood. This paper aims to understand what role the broader range of emotions, including compassion and shame, experienced by healthcare professionals following patient safety incidents (PSI) play in the subsequent enactment of prosocial voice, a positive and other-oriented form of communication.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This study is based on data from a single English NHS hospital: interviews with healthcare professionals involved in PSIs (N = 40), observations at quality and risk committees and meetings (N = 26 h) and review of investigative documents (N = 33). Three recent PSIs were selected for cross-case analysis based upon organisational theory related to professional hierarchy, employee voice and literature on emotions.

FINDINGS

Among three cases, the authors found variance in context, emotional experience and voice behaviour. Where professionals feared blame and repercussion, voice was defensive. Meanwhile where they experienced shame and compassion, prosocial voice was enacted to protect patients.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare organisations seeking to foster prosocial voice should: (1) be more considerate of professionals' emotional experiences post-PSI and ensure adequate support for recovery (2) establish norms for professionals to share their struggles with others (3) reward professionals who demonstrate caring behaviour (4) buffer professionals from workplace pressures.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The authors' study highlights how emotional experiences, such as shame and compassion, can mediate blame and defensiveness and lead to the enactment of prosocial voice in the professional hierarchy.

Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service

OBJECTIVE

The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice.

METHODS

We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.

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.

Speaking-up for patient safety: A scoping narrative review of international literature and lessons for radiography in Ghana and other resource-constrained settings

OBJECTIVES

Employees 'speaking-up', or raising concerns about unsafe practices, has gained traction across healthcare, however, the topic has not been widely discussed within radiography generally or within resource-constrained healthcare settings. A systematic scoping narrative review identified the experiences of radiographers in speaking-up about safety concerns, which was extended to healthcare professionals more broadly. The scope of the review was further extended to cover speaking-up in non-healthcare resource-constrained settings in Africa.

KEY FINDINGS

Sixty-three studies were included in the review. The majority originated from westernised and/or higher resource health systems, with a dearth of literature from Africa and other resource-constrained settings. Several studies identified barriers and enablers confronting healthcare workers wishing to speak-up. While 'speaking-up' as a concept has gained international interest, most studies are, however, focussed on nursing and medical practice contexts, overlooking other healthcare professions, including radiography. The findings are synthesised into a series of key lessons for healthcare and radiography practitioners in Ghana and other resource-constrained settings.

CONCLUSION

The topic has been largely overlooked by policy makers, both within healthcare generally and specifically within radiography in Ghana. This is particularly concerning given the many complexities and risks inherent to radiography. A radiography and a healthcare workforce lacking in voice is poorly positioned to improve workers' safety and patient safety. More generally, promoting speaking up could enhance Ghana's ambitions to deliver a high-quality health care system and Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in the future.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

National and regional policy makers need to implement speaking-up processes and procedures reflecting the lessons of the literature review, such as ensuring no detriment as result of speaking-up and making staff feel that their concerns are not futile. Speaking-up processes should be implemented by individual organisations, alongside staff training and monitoring.

What counts as a voiceable concern in decisions about speaking out in hospitals: A qualitative study

Objectives

Those who work in health care organisations are a potentially valuable source of information about safety concerns, yet failures of voice are persistent. We propose the concept of ‘voiceable concern’ and offer an empirical exploration.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study involving 165 semi-structured interviews with a range of staff (clinical, non-clinical and at different hierarchical levels) in three hospitals in two countries. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

Results

Our analysis shows that identifying what counts as a concern, and what counts as a occasion for voice by a given individual, is not a straightforward matter of applying objective criteria. It instead often involves discretionary judgement, exercised in highly specific organisational and cultural contexts. We identified four influences that shape whether incidents, events and patterns were classified as voiceable concerns: certainty that something is wrong and is an occasion for voice; system versus conduct concerns, forgivability and normalisation. Determining what counted as a voiceable concern is not a simple function of the features of the concern; also important is whether the person who noticed the concern felt it was voiceable by them.

Conclusions

Understanding how those who work in health care organisations come to recognise what counts as a voiceable concern is critical to understanding decisions and actions about speaking out. The concept of a voiceable concern may help to explain aspects of voice behaviour in organisations as well as informing interventions to improve voice.

What became of the 'eyes and the ears'?: exploring the challenges to reporting poor quality of care among trainee medical staff

The importance of trainee medical staff in alerting Trusts to patient safety risks and low-quality care was established by the Francis Report, yet many remain hesitant about speaking up. Known barriers include lack of feedback, sceptical attitudes to the likelihood of change and fear of consequences. The author explores other factors including moral orientation in the workplace, role modelling by senior clinicians, discontinuity, 'normalisation of deviance', human reactions to burnout/moral injury, loyalty and the spectrum of motivation. The issues of absent feedback and fear are discussed in detail. Challenges met by those receiving reports are also described, such as how to collate soft intelligence, putting concerns into context (the 'bigger picture') and stewardship of resources. Initiatives to encourage reporting of trainees' concerns such as speak up guardians, 'Speak Up for Safety' campaign and simulation training are described. A proposal to embed proactive intelligence-gathering arrangements is presented.

The role of the informal and formal organisation in voice about concerns in healthcare: A qualitative interview study

The importance of employee voice-speaking up and out about concerns-is widely recognised as fundamental to patient safety and quality of care. However, failures of voice continue to occur, often with disastrous consequences. In this article, we argue that the enduring sociological concepts of the informal organisation and formal organisation offer analytical purchase in understanding the causes of such problems and how they can be addressed. We report a qualitative study involving 165 interviews across three healthcare organisations in two high-income countries. Our analysis emphasises the interdependence of the formal and informal organisation. The formal organisation describes codified and formalised elements of structures, procedures and processes for the exercise of voice, but participants often found it frustrating, ambiguous, and poorly designed. The informal organisation-the informal practices, social connections, and methods for making decisions that are key to coordinating organisational activity-could facilitate voice through its capacity to help people to understand complex processes, make sense of their concerns, and frame them in ways likely to prompt an appropriate organisational response. Sometimes the informal organisation compensated for gaps, ambiguities and inconsistencies in formal policies and systems. At the same time, the informal organisation had a dark side, potentially subduing voice by creating informal hierarchies, prioritising social cohesion, and providing opportunities for retaliation. The formal and the informal organisation are not exclusive or independent: they interact with and mutually reinforce each other. Our findings have implications for efforts to improve culture and processes in relation to voice in healthcare organisations, pointing to the need to address deficits in the formal organisation, and to the potential of building on strengths in the informal organisation that are crucial in supporting voice.