Individual, interpersonal, and organisational factors of healthcare conflict: A scoping review.

Unresolved conflicts among healthcare professionals can lead to difficult patient care consequences. This scoping review examines the current healthcare literature that reported sources and consequences of conflict associated with individual, interpersonal, and organisational factors. We identified 99 articles published between 2001 and 2015 from PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Excerpta Medical Database. Most reviewed studies relied on healthcare professionals' perceptions and beliefs associated with conflict sources and consequences, with few studies reporting behavioural or organisational change outcomes. Individual conflict sources included personal traits, such as self-focus, self-esteem, or worldview, as well as individuals' conflict management styles. These conflicts posed threats to one's physical, mental, and emotional health and to one's ability to perform at work. Interpersonal dynamics were hampered by colleagues' uncivil behaviours, such as low degree of support, to more destructive behaviours including bullying or humiliation. Perceptions of disrespectful working environment and weakened team collaboration were the main interpersonal conflict consequences. Organisational conflict sources included ambiguity in professional roles, scope of practice, reporting structure, or workflows, negatively affecting healthcare professionals' job satisfactions and intent to stay. Future inquiries into healthcare conflict research may target the following: shifting from research involving single professions to multiple professions; dissemination of studies via journals that promote interprofessional research; inquiries into the roles of unconscious or implicit bias, or psychological capital (i.e., resilience) in healthcare conflict; and diversification of data sources to include hospital or clinic data with implications for conflict sources.

Promoting cultural humility during labor and birth: putting theory into action during PRONTO obstetric and neonatal emergency training.

Maternal and neonatal mortality in Northern Guatemala, a region with a high percentage of indigenous people, is disproportionately high. Initiatives to improve quality of care at local health facilities equipped for births, and increasing the number of births attended at these facilities will help address this problem. PRONTO (Programa de Rescate Obstétrico y Neonatal: Tratamiento Óptimo y Oportuno) is a low-tech, high-fidelity, simulation-based, provider-to-provider training in the management of obstetric and neonatal emergencies. This program has been successfully tested and implemented in Mexico. PRONTO will now be implemented in Guatemala as part of an initiative to decrease maternal and perinatal mortality. Guatemalan health authorities have requested that the training include training on cultural humility and humanized birth. This article describes the process of curricular adaptation to satisfy this request. The PRONTO team adapted the existing program through 4 steps: (a) analysis of the problem and context through a review of qualitative data and stakeholder interviews, (b) literature review and adoption of a theoretical framework regarding cultural humility and adult learning, (c) adaptation of the curriculum and design of new activities and simulations, and (d) implementation of adapted and expanded curriculum and further refinement in response to participant response.

"Hot Seat" Simulation Model for Conflict Resolution: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Unresolved conflicts in health care threaten both clinician morale and quality of patient care. We piloted a training model that targeted clinicians' conflict resolution skills. METHODS: Sixty clinicians from local hospitals were randomized into an intervention group (n = 30), completing a 3-hour conflict resolution training session, and a control group (n = 30) without training. The training included facilitated practice with actors, coaching, and feedback. Evaluation of 60 participants' conflict resolution skills was done in videotaped simulations with actors portraying interprofessional colleagues. Global ratings and checklist items developed for assessing clinicians' performance mirrored steps in the conflict communication model. RESULTS: The intervention group's performance exceeded the control group on global scores, 7.2 of 10 (SD = 1.6) versus 5.6 (SD = 1.5), p < .05, and checklist scores, 9.3 of 11 (SD = 2.9) versus 7.9 (SD = 1.5), p < .05. Two checklist items showed statistically significant differences: (1) subjects opened the dialogue on a neutral ground before jumping into conflict discussions (intervention: 97% and control: 73%, p < .05) and (2) subjects elicited the colleague's story before sharing their own story (intervention: 70% and control: 27%, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The pilot results suggest that a health care-specific approach to conflict resolution can be effectively taught through facilitated practice, coaching, and feedback.