Search

BACKGROUND: Communication is an essential organizational process for responding to adversity. Managers are often advised to communicate frequently and redundantly during crises. Nonetheless, systematic investigation of how information receivers perceive organizational communication amid crises has remained lacking. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to characterize features of effective internal crisis communication by examining how information-sharing processes unfolded during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: Between June and August 2020, we conducted 55 semistructured interviews with emergency department workers practicing in a variety of roles. We analyzed interview transcripts following constructivist constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Our findings revealed that at the onset of COVID-19 pandemic response, emergency department workers struggled with immense fear and anxiety amid high uncertainty and equivocality. Frequent and redundant communication, however, resulted in information delivery and uptake problems, worsening anxiety, and interpersonal tension. These problems were ameliorated by the emergence of contextual experts who centralized and democratized communication. Centralization standardized information received across roles, work schedules, and settings while decoupling internal communication from turbulence in the environment. Democratization made information accessible in a way that all could understand. It also ensured information senders receptiveness to feedback from information receivers. Centralization and democratization together worked to reduce sensed uncertainty and equivocality, which reduced anxiety and interpersonal tension. CONCLUSION: Establishing frequent and redundant communication strategies does not necessarily address the anxiety and interpersonal tension produced by uncertainty and equivocality in crises. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Centralization and democratization of crisis communication can reduce anxiety, improve coordination, and promote a safer workplace and patient care environment.

Clinical guidelines are evidence-based clinician decision-support tools that improve health outcomes, reduce patient harm, and decrease healthcare costs, but are often underused in emergency departments (EDs). This article describes a replicable, evidence-based design-thinking approach to developing best practices for guideline design that improves clinical satisfaction and usage. We used a 5-step process to enhance guideline usability in our ED. First, we conducted end-user interviews to identify barriers to guideline usage. Second, we reviewed the literature to identify key principles in guideline design. Third, we applied our findings to create a standardized guideline format, incorporating rapid cycle learning and iterative improvements. Fourth, we ensured the clinical validity of our updated guidelines by using a rigorous process for peer review. Lastly, we evaluated the impact of our guideline conversion process by tracking clinical guidelines access per day from October 2020 to January 2022. Our end-user interviews and review of the design literature revealed several barriers to guideline use, including lack of readability, design inconsistencies, and guideline complexity. Although our previous clinical guideline system averaged 0.13 users per day, >43 users per day accessed the clinical guidelines on our new digital platform in January 2022, representing an increase in access and use exceeding 33,000%. Our replicable process using open-access resources increased clinician access to and satisfaction with clinical guidelines in our ED. Design-thinking and use of low-cost technology can significantly improve clinical guideline visibility and has the potential to increase guideline use.

BackgroundPsychological safety-the belief that it is safe to speak up-is vital amid uncertainty, but its relationship to feeling heard is not well understood.PurposeThe aims of this study were (a) to measure feeling heard and (b) to assess how psychological safety and feeling heard relate to one another as well as to burnout, worsening burnout, and adaptation during uncertainty.MethodologyWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of emergency department staff and clinicians (response rate = 52%; analytic N = 241) in July 2020. The survey measured psychological safety, feeling heard, overall burnout, worsening burnout, and perceived process adaptation during the COVID-19 crisis. We assessed descriptive statistics and construct measurement properties, and we assessed relationships among the variables using generalized structural equation modeling.ResultsPsychological safety and feeling heard demonstrated acceptable measurement properties and were correlated at r = .54. Levels of feeling heard were lower on average than psychological safety. Psychological safety and feeling heard were both statistically significantly associated with lower burnout and greater process adaptation. Only psychological safety exhibited a statistically significant relationship with less worsening burnout during crisis. We found evidence that feeling heard mediates psychological safety's relationship to burnout and process adaptation.ConclusionPsychological safety is important but not sufficient for feeling heard. Feeling heard may help mitigate burnout and enable adaptation during uncertainty.Practice implicationsFor health care leaders, expanding beyond psychological safety to also establish a feeling of being heard may further reduce burnout and improve care processes.

Introduction: Many patients have unaddressed social needs that significantly impact their health, yet navigating the landscape of available resources and eligibility requirements is complex for both patients and clinicians.  Methods: Using an iterative design-thinking approach, our multidisciplinary team built, tested, and deployed a digital decision tool called “Discharge Navigator” (edrive.ucsf.edu/dcnav) that helps emergency clinicians identify targeted social resources for patients upon discharge from the acute care setting. The tool uses each patient’s clinical and demographic information to tailor recommended community resources, providing the clinician with action items, pandemic restrictions, and patient handouts for relevant resources in five languages. We implemented two modules at our urban, academic, Level I trauma center.  Results: Over the 10-week period following product launch, between 4-81 on-shift emergency clinicians used our tool each week. Anonymously surveyed clinicians (n = 53) reported a significant increase in awareness of homelessness resources (33% pre to 70% post, P

ObjectiveWe examined the relationship of team and leadership attributes with clinician feelings of burnout over time during the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsWe surveyed emergency medicine personnel at 2 California hospitals at 3 time points: July 2020, December 2020, and November 2021. We assessed 3 team and leadership attributes using previously validated psychological scales (joint problem-solving, process clarity, and leader inclusiveness) and burnout using a validated scale. Using logistic regression models we determined the associations between team and leadership attributes and burnout, controlling for covariates.ResultsWe obtained responses from 328, 356, and 260 respondents in waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively (mean response rate = 49.52%). The median response for feelings of burnout increased over time (2.0, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.0-3.0 in wave 1 to 3.0, IQR = 2.0-3.0 in wave 3). At all time points, greater process clarity was associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36 [0.19, 0.66] in wave 1 to 0.24 [0.10, 0.61] in wave 3). In waves 2 and 3, greater joint problem-solving was associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (OR [95% CI] = 0.61 [0.42, 0.89], 0.54 [0.33, 0.88]). Leader inclusiveness was also associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (OR [95% CI] = 0.45 [0.27, 0.74] in wave 1 to 0.41 [0.24, 0.69] in wave 3).ConclusionsProcess clarity, joint problem-solving, and leader inclusiveness are associated with less clinician burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing to potential benefits of focusing on team and leadership factors during crisis. Leader inclusiveness may wane over time, requiring effort to sustain.

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated an unprecedented volume of evolving clinical guidelines that strained existing clinical information systems and necessitated rapid innovation in emergency departments (EDs).ObjectivesOur team aimed to harness new COVID-19-related reliance on digital clinical support tools to re-envision how all clinical guidelines are stored and accessed in our ED.MethodsWe used a design-thinking approach including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing to develop a low-cost, homegrown clinical information hub: E*Drive. To measure impact, we compared web traffic on E*Drive to our legacy cloud-based folder system and conducted a survey of end-users using a validated health technology utilization instrument.ResultsOur final product, E*Drive, is a centralized clinical information hub storing everything from clinical guidelines to discharge resources. Clinical guidelines are standardized and housed within the high-traffic E*Drive platform to increase accessibility. Since launch, E*Drive has averaged 84 unique weekly users, compared with less than one weekly user on the legacy system. We surveyed 52 clinicians for a total response rate of 47%. Prior to the E*Drive rollout, 12.5% of ED clinicians felt confident accessing clinical information on the legacy system, whereas 76.6% of ED clinicians felt they could more easily access clinical information using E*Drive.ConclusionThe COVID pandemic revealed vulnerabilities within our information dissemination system and presented an opportunity to improve clinical information delivery. Centralized web-based clinical information hubs designed around the clinician end-user experience can increase clinical guideline access in the ED.