Search

Abstract Background Psychological safety is a team-based phenomenon whereby group members are empowered to ask questions, take appropriate risks, admit mistakes, propose novel ideas, and candidly voice concerns. Growing research supports the benefits of psychological safety in healthcare and education for patient safety, learning, and innovation. However, there is a paucity of research on how to create psychological safety, especially within academic medicine. To meet this need, the present study describes and evaluates a multi-year, medical school-wide psychological safety initiative. Methods We created, implemented, and assessed a multi-pronged psychological safety initiative including educational training sessions, departmental champions, videos, infographics, and targeted training for medical school leaders. Employees’ perceptions of psychological safety at both the departmental and institutional levels were assessed annually. The impact of educational training sessions was quantified by post-session surveys. Results Deidentified employee surveys revealed a statistically significant increase in departmental psychological safety between the first and second annual surveys. Perceived psychological safety remained lower at the institution-wide level than at the departmental level. No significant differences in psychological safety were observed based on gender, position, or employment length. Post-educational training session surveys showed that the sessions significantly increased knowledge of the topic as well as motivation to create a culture of psychological safety within the medical school. Conclusions This study establishes an evidence-based method for increasing psychological safety within medical school departments and serves as a template for other health professions schools seeking to promote psychological safety. Training leadership, faculty, and staff is an important first step towards creating a culture of psychological safety for everyone, including trainees.

Abstract Background Central to Safety-II is promoting resilience of healthcare practices. In the “Room for Resilience” research project we focus on the role of horizontal and vertical accountability in healthcare teams and aim to discover how the relation between the two impacts team reflections and discussions. In this article, we report on an explorative study at the start of the project which aimed to assess the structures and dynamics of horizontal and vertical accountability. Methods A qualitative study in six teams in three hospitals in the Netherlands. For the project, each team selected a specific clinical process to work on (e.g. pain assessment). We interviewed healthcare professionals, managers, and quality advisors about these processes, how they are discussed in practice and how teams need to account for them. Additionally, we observed the processes and how teams discuss them in practice. In total, we conducted 35 interviews and 67.5 h of observation. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Professionals at times varied in what they considered the right approach in the clinical process, with differing views on the importance of certain actions. When processes were discussed, this mostly was done during clinical work, and it often concerned reflections about the care for a specific patient instead of reflecting on the team’s general approach of the clinical process. Organized reflections on the processes were sparse. How processes were conducted in practice deviated from guidelines, mainly due to staff shortages, a perceived lack of value of a guideline, equipment issues, and collaboration issues. For most processes, accountability to hierarchical layers consisted of quality indicator scores. Professionals were tasked with registering indicator data but did not find this meaningful for their work. Conclusions The observed different perspectives within teams on what good quality care is show the importance of having team reflections about these processes. How vertical accountability was organized at times impacted the conditions for teams to discuss resilient performance. Following these findings, we recommend that reflection on resilient practice and the role of accountability processes is organized on all levels in (and outside) the organization.

Abstract Background Professional subgroups are common and may play a role in aiding professional maturity or impeding professional legitimization. The chiropractic profession in the United States has a long history of diverse intra-professional subgroups with varying ideologies and practice styles. To our knowledge, large-scale quantification of chiropractic professional subgroups in the United States has not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to quantify and describe the clinical practice beliefs and behaviors associated with United States chiropractic subgroups. Methods A 10% random sample of United States licensed chiropractors (n = 8975) was selected from all 50 state regulatory board lists and invited to participate in a survey. The survey consisted of a 7-item questionnaire; 6 items were associated with chiropractic ideological and practice characteristics and 1 item was related to the self-identified role of chiropractic in the healthcare system which was utilized as the dependent variable to identify chiropractic subgroups. Multinomial logistic regression with predictive margins was used to analyze which responses to the 6 ideology and practice characteristic items were predictive of chiropractic subgroups. Results A total of 3538 responses were collected (39.4% response rate). Respondents self-identified into three distinct subgroups based on the perceived role of the chiropractic profession in the greater healthcare system: 56.8% were spine/neuromusculoskeletal focused; 22.0% were primary care focused; and 21.2% were vertebral subluxation focused. Patterns of responses to the 6 ideologies and practice characteristic items were substantially different across the three professional subgroups. Conclusions Respondents self-identified into one of three distinct intra-professional subgroups. These subgroups can be differentiated along themes related to clinical practice beliefs and behaviors.

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent pressures on healthcare staff and resources have exacerbated the need for clinical teams to reflect and learn from workplace experiences. Surges in critically ill patients, the impact of the disease on the workforce and long term adjustments in work and life have upturned our normality. Whilst this situation has generated a new ‘connectedness’ within healthcare workers, it also continues to test our resilience. An international multi-professional collaboration has guided the identification of ongoing difficulties to effective communication and debriefing, as well as emerging opportunities to promote a culture of dialogue. This article outlines pandemic related barriers and new possibilities categorising them according to task management, teamwork, situational awareness and decision making. It describes their direct and indirect impact on clinical debriefing and signposts towards solutions to overcome challenges and, building on new bridges, advance team conversations that allow us to learn, improve and support each other. This pandemic has brought clinical professionals together; nevertheless, it is essential to invest in further developing and supporting cohesive teams. Debriefing enables healthcare teams and educators to mitigate stress, build resilience and promote a culture of continuous learning and patient care improvement.

Abstract Background Psychological safety allows healthcare professionals to take the interpersonal risks needed to engage in effective teamwork and to maintain patient safety. In order to improve psychological safety in healthcare teams, an in-depth understanding of the complex and nuanced nature of psychological safety is needed. Psychological safety concepts, including voice, silence, learning behaviour, support and familiarity, informed the current study’s investigation of psychological safety. This study aims to use a mixed-methods approach to develop an in-depth understanding of psychological safety within healthcare teams and to build on this understanding to inform the development of future interventions to improve it. Methods Survey, observational and interview data are triangulated in order to develop an in- depth understanding of psychological safety within four healthcare teams, working within one case study hospital. The teams taking part included one multidisciplinary and three unidisciplinary teams. Observational and survey data were collected during and immediately following team meetings. Individual interviews were conducted with 31 individuals across the four teams. Thematic analysis was used to analyse these interviews. Results Survey results indicated a high level of psychological safety. However, observations and interviews captured examples of silence and situations where participants felt less psychologically safe. Findings from across all three data sources are discussed in relation to voice and silence, learning, familiarity and support. Conclusion The results of this study provide a detailed description and in-depth understanding of psychological safety within four healthcare teams. Based on this, recommendations are made for future research and the development of interventions to improve psychological safety.

Abstract Background Psychological safety is a dynamic team-level phenomenon which exists when team members believe that it is safe to take interpersonal risks. In healthcare teams, the presence of psychological safety is critical to delivering safe care. Scholars have highlighted a need for alternative measures which compliment survey-based measures of psychological safety in healthcare teams. Methods The exploratory phase of this study raised concerns about whether current survey measures could provide a sufficient understanding of psychological safety within healthcare teams to inform strategies to improve it. Thus, previously validated psychological safety surveys and a meeting observation measure were adapted for use in healthcare teams. First, two group feedback sessions were held with 22 healthcare professionals, as well as a systematic literature review. Then, the members of eleven healthcare teams in Ireland and The Netherlands (n = 135) took part in the pilot test of the adapted composite measure. Results The final composite measure has two parts: a team meeting observation measure and an adapted survey. The observation measure has 31 observable behaviours fitting seven categories: voice, defensive voice, silence behaviours, supportive, unsupportive, learning or improvement-oriented and familiarity type behaviours. The survey part consists of 19 items in three sub-dimensions related to; the team leader, other team members and the team as a whole. Three additional items capture the perceived representativeness of the observed team meeting compared to other similar meetings. Final adaptations were made in order to integrate the observation and survey measure. Conclusions The resulting composite measure combines the strengths of observational and survey measures and is tailored for use in healthcare teams. It is uniquely co-developed with healthcare professionals and grounded in the psychological safety and healthcare literature. This composite measure can enable longitudinal research on psychological safety and inform future research to develop and test interventions to improve psychological safety.

Abstract Background A high variety of team interventions aims to improve team performance outcomes. In 2008, we conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of the scientific studies focused on these interventions. However, over the past decade, the literature on team interventions has rapidly evolved. An updated overview is therefore required, and it will focus on all possible team interventions without restrictions to a type of intervention, setting, or research design. Objectives To review the literature from the past decade on interventions with the goal of improving team effectiveness within healthcare organizations and identify the “evidence base” levels of the research. Methods Seven major databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published between 2008 and July 2018. Of the original search yield of 6025 studies, 297 studies met the inclusion criteria according to three independent authors and were subsequently included for analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Scale was used to assess the level of empirical evidence. Results Three types of interventions were distinguished: (1) Training, which is sub-divided into training that is based on predefined principles (i.e. CRM: crew resource management and TeamSTEPPS: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), on a specific method (i.e. simulation), or on general team training. (2) Tools covers tools that structure (i.e. SBAR: Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation, (de)briefing checklists, and rounds), facilitate (through communication technology), or trigger (through monitoring and feedback) teamwork. (3) Organizational (re)design is about (re)designing structures to stimulate team processes and team functioning. (4) A programme is a combination of the previous types. The majority of studies evaluated a training focused on the (acute) hospital care setting. Most of the evaluated interventions focused on improving non-technical skills and provided evidence of improvements. Conclusion Over the last decade, the number of studies on team interventions has increased exponentially. At the same time, research tends to focus on certain interventions, settings, and/or outcomes. Principle-based training (i.e. CRM and TeamSTEPPS) and simulation-based training seem to provide the greatest opportunities for reaching the improvement goals in team functioning.

Abstract Background Complexity science has been introduced in healthcare as a theoretical framework to better understand complex situations. Interdisciplinary healthcare teams can be viewed as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) by focusing more on the team members’ interaction with each other than on the characteristics of individual team members. Viewing teams in this way can provide us with insights into the origins of team behaviour. The aim of this study is to describe the functioning of a healthcare team as it originates from the members’ interactions using the CAS principles as a framework and to explore factors influencing workplace learning as emergent behaviour. Methods An interview study was done with 21 palliative home-care nurses, 20 community nurses and 18 general practitioners in Flanders, Belgium. A two-step analysis consisted of a deductive approach, which uses the CAS principles as coding framework for interview transcripts, followed by an inductive approach, which identifies patterns in the codes for each CAS principle. Results All CAS principles were identified in the interview transcripts of the three groups. The most prevalent principles in our study were principles with a structuring effect on team functioning: team members act autonomously guided by internalized basic rules; attractors shape the team functioning; a team has a history and is sensitive to initial conditions; and a team is an open system, interacting with its environment. The other principles, focusing on the result of the structuring principles, were present in the data, albeit to a lesser extent: team members’ interactions are non-linear; interactions between team members can produce unpredictable behaviour; and interactions between team members can generate new behaviour. Patterns, reflecting team behaviour, were recognized in the coding of each CAS principle. Patterns of team behaviour, identified in this way, were linked to interprofessional competencies of the Interprofessional Collaboration Collaborative. Factors influencing workplace learning were identified. Conclusions This study provides us with insights into the origin of team functioning by explaining how patterns of interactions between team members define team behaviour. Viewing healthcare teams as Complex Adaptive Systems may offer explanations of different aspects of team behaviour with implications for education, practice and research.

Resumen Introducción Las organizaciones de salud son altamente complejas y especializadas. En este escenario es necesario que los profesionales de salud trabajen colaborativamente en equipos de trabajo interprofesionales, asegurando un cuidado de calidad y seguro. Para fortalecer el trabajo en equipo interprofesional, es imperativo mejorar la gestión estratégica de recursos humanos en organizaciones de salud, promoviendo la satisfacción de sus miembros. Objetivo Analizar la satisfacción de los miembros de equipos interprofesionales, explorando sus relaciones interpersonales, liderazgo y clima de equipo en un contexto hospitalario. Metodología Estudio de métodos mixtos secuencial explicatorio (cuantitativo-cualitativo) en 53 equipos (409 profesionales) de un hospital universitario en Santiago, Chile. Primera fase incluyó encuestas a los miembros de equipos para examinar satisfacción con el equipo, liderazgo transformacional y clima. Utilizando análisis de redes sociales para identificar interacciones entre sus miembros (densidad y cohesión). Segunda fase incorpora 15 entrevistas a profesionales de equipos con los puntaje más altos y bajos de satisfacción. Integración de los resultados de ambas fases. Resultados Asociaciones significativas entre las variables y un modelo de regresión lineal que reveló que el clima de equipo (β = 0.26) es un mejor predictor de la satisfacción con el equipo, que el liderazgo transformacional (β = 0.17). Enfermería fue el profesional con el más alto puntaje en liderazgo transformacional (media = 64), seguido por el medico (media = 33). Las redes sociales de los equipos con puntajes extremos de satisfacción mostraron diferencias en cohesión y centralidad. El análisis de las entrevistas entrego cinco temas: atributos del trabajo interprofesional; colaboración, comunicación e interacción social; innovación en equipo interprofesional; liderazgo compartido; interface entre relaciones interpersonales de trabajo y social. Integración de los resultados reveló que la satisfacción requiere participación y comunicación, metas comunes y compromiso con un cuidado centrado en el paciente, claridad de roles y responsabilidades para trabajar colaborativamente y la presencia de liderazgo transformacional para fortalecer el bienestar, diálogo e innovación. Conclusión Los resultados tienen el potencial de contribuir a la planificación y toma de decisiones en el área de recursos humanos en salud con elementos que promuevan la administración de equipos de salud apoyando la satisfacción de sus miembros. Pudiendo llevar a permanencia laboral especialmente donde las necesidades locales de salud son más urgentes.