William Martinez1, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann2,3, Eric J Thomas4, Jason M Etchegaray5, Julia T Shelburne6, Gerald B Hickson7, Donald W Brady8, Anneliese M Schleyer9, Jennifer A Best9, Natalie B May10, Sigall K Bell11. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine & Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. National Center for Ethics in Health Care, Veterans Health Administration, Washington DC, USA. 4. Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 7. Quality, Safety & Risk Prevention, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 8. Office of Graduate Medical Education, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 10. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 11. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open communication between healthcare professionals about care concerns, also known as 'speaking up', is essential to patient safety. OBJECTIVE: Compare interns' and residents' experiences, attitudes and factors associated with speaking up about traditional versus professionalism-related safety threats. DESIGN: Anonymous, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Six US academic medical centres, 2013-2014. PARTICIPANTS: 1800 medical and surgical interns and residents (47% responded). MEASUREMENTS: Attitudes about, barriers and facilitators for, and self-reported experience with speaking up. Likelihood of speaking up and the potential for patient harm in two vignettes. Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ) teamwork and safety scales; and Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety (SUC-Safe) and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism (SUC-Prof) scales. RESULTS: Respondents more commonly observed unprofessional behaviour (75%, 628/837) than traditional safety threats (49%, 410/837); p<0.001, but reported speaking up about unprofessional behaviour less commonly (46%, 287/628 vs 71%, 291/410; p<0.001). Respondents more commonly reported fear of conflict as a barrier to speaking up about unprofessional behaviour compared with traditional safety threats (58%, 482/837 vs 42%, 348/837; p<0.001). Respondents were also less likely to speak up to an attending physician in the professionalism vignette than the traditional safety vignette, even when they perceived high potential patient harm (20%, 49/251 vs 71%, 179/251; p<0.001). Positive perceptions of SAQ teamwork climate and SUC-Safe were independently associated with speaking up in the traditional safety vignette (OR 1.90, 99% CI 1.36 to 2.66 and 1.46, 1.02 to 2.09, respectively), while only a positive perception of SUC-Prof was associated with speaking up in the professionalism vignette (1.76, 1.23 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: Interns and residents commonly observed unprofessional behaviour yet were less likely to speak up about it compared with traditional safety threats even when they perceived high potential patient harm. Measuring SUC-Safe, and particularly SUC-Prof, may fill an existing gap in safety culture assessment. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Open communication between healthcare professionals about care concerns, also known as 'speaking up', is essential to patient safety. OBJECTIVE: Compare interns' and residents' experiences, attitudes and factors associated with speaking up about traditional versus professionalism-related safety threats. DESIGN: Anonymous, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Six US academic medical centres, 2013-2014. PARTICIPANTS: 1800 medical and surgical interns and residents (47% responded). MEASUREMENTS: Attitudes about, barriers and facilitators for, and self-reported experience with speaking up. Likelihood of speaking up and the potential for patient harm in two vignettes. Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ) teamwork and safety scales; and Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety (SUC-Safe) and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism (SUC-Prof) scales. RESULTS: Respondents more commonly observed unprofessional behaviour (75%, 628/837) than traditional safety threats (49%, 410/837); p<0.001, but reported speaking up about unprofessional behaviour less commonly (46%, 287/628 vs 71%, 291/410; p<0.001). Respondents more commonly reported fear of conflict as a barrier to speaking up about unprofessional behaviour compared with traditional safety threats (58%, 482/837 vs 42%, 348/837; p<0.001). Respondents were also less likely to speak up to an attending physician in the professionalism vignette than the traditional safety vignette, even when they perceived high potential patient harm (20%, 49/251 vs 71%, 179/251; p<0.001). Positive perceptions of SAQ teamwork climate and SUC-Safe were independently associated with speaking up in the traditional safety vignette (OR 1.90, 99% CI 1.36 to 2.66 and 1.46, 1.02 to 2.09, respectively), while only a positive perception of SUC-Prof was associated with speaking up in the professionalism vignette (1.76, 1.23 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: Interns and residents commonly observed unprofessional behaviour yet were less likely to speak up about it compared with traditional safety threats even when they perceived high potential patient harm. Measuring SUC-Safe, and particularly SUC-Prof, may fill an existing gap in safety culture assessment. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Communication; Graduate medical education; Safety culture
Authors: Traber Davis Giardina; Helen Haskell; Shailaja Menon; Julia Hallisy; Frederick S Southwick; Urmimala Sarkar; Kathryn E Royse; Hardeep Singh Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Jill Maben; Justin Avery Aunger; Ruth Abrams; Mark Pearson; Judy M Wright; Johanna Westbrook; Russell Mannion; Aled Jones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Graham P Martin; Emma-Louise Aveling; Anne Campbell; Carolyn Tarrant; Peter J Pronovost; Imogen Mitchell; Christian Dankers; David Bates; Mary Dixon-Woods Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Marianne Mak-van der Vossen; Arianne Teherani; Walther N K A van Mook; Gerda Croiset; Rashmi A Kusurkar Journal: Med Educ Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 6.251