What inhibits "speaking up" for patient safety among healthcare workers? A cross-sectional study in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare, "speaking up" refers to when healthcare workers raise concerns regarding patient safety through questions, sharing information, or expressing their opinion to prevent harmful incidents and ensure patient safety. Conversely, withholding voice is an act of not raising concerns, which could be beneficial in certain situations. Factors associated with speaking up and withholding voices are not fully understood, especially in strong authoritarian societies, such as Malaysia. This study aimed to examine the factors associated with speaking up and withholding the voices of healthcare workers in Malaysia, thus providing suggestions that can be used in other countries facing similar patient safety challenges. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Sarawak State, Malaysia. Data were collected from 474 healthcare workers from 43 departments using a self-administered questionnaire for speaking up and withholding voices measures in 4 weeks prior to data analysis as well as socio-demographic factors of healthcare workers (sex, age group, profession, department, weekly work hours for patient care, years of employment in the hospital, and the hierarchical level) and speaking up related climate of the working environment were recorded. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Logistic regression was performed to find out (adjusted) odds ratio of frequent speaking up and withholding voices. RESULTS: Nurse compared to doctors and healthcare workers with short weekly working hours were more likely to speak up. Healthcare workers in emergency and intensive care department, those with short years of employment, and those who worked at low hierarchical levels were less likely to speak up. Healthcare workers in discouraging environment towards speaking up were more likely to withhold their voices. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the characteristics of healthcare workers who speak up and those who withhold their voices in Malaysia. To ensure patient safety and prevent harm, it is essential to establish an encouraging environment that promotes speaking up and prevents withholding voices among healthcare worker, especially in circumstances where multiple types of healthcare workers with different socio-demographic backgrounds work together.

Evaluation of a culture change program to reduce unprofessional behaviours by hospital co-workers in Australian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviours between healthcare workers are highly prevalent. Evaluations of large-scale culture change programs are rare resulting in limited evidence of intervention effectiveness. We conducted a multi-method evaluation of a professional accountability and culture change program "Ethos" implemented across eight Australian hospitals. The Ethos program incorporates training for staff in speaking-up; an online system for reporting co-worker behaviours; and a tiered accountability pathway, including peer-messengers who deliver feedback to staff for 'reflection' or 'recognition'. Here we report the final evaluation component which aimed to measure changes in the prevalence of unprofessional behaviours before and after Ethos. METHODS: A survey of staff (clinical and non-clinical) experiences of 26 unprofessional behaviours across five hospitals at baseline before (2018) and 2.5-3 years after (2021/2022) Ethos implementation. Five of the 26 behaviours were classified as 'extreme' (e.g., assault) and 21 as incivility/bullying (e.g., being spoken to rudely). Our analysis assessed changes in four dimensions: work-related bullying; person-related bullying; physical bullying and sexual harassment. Change in experience of incivility/bullying was compared using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Change in extreme behaviours was assessed using multivariable binary logistic regression. All models were adjusted for respondent characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 3975 surveys were completed. Staff reporting frequent incivility/bullying significantly declined from 41.7% (n = 1064; 95% CI 39.7,43.9) at baseline to 35.5% (n = 505; 95% CI 32.8,38.3; χ2(1) = 14.3; P < 0.001) post-Ethos. The odds of experiencing incivility/bullying declined by 24% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.66,0.87; P < 0.001) and odds of experiencing extreme behaviours by 32% (aOR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54,0.85; P < 0.001) following Ethos. All four dimensions showed a reduction of 32-41% in prevalence post-Ethos. Non-clinical staff reported the greatest decrease in their experience of unprofessional behaviour (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.29, 0.61). Staff attitudes and reported skills to speak-up were significantly more positive at follow-up. Awareness of the program was high (82.1%; 95% CI 80.0, 84.0%); 33% of respondents had sent or received an Ethos message. CONCLUSION: The Ethos program was associated with significant reductions in the prevalence of reported unprofessional behaviours and improved capacity of hospital staff to speak-up. These results add to evidence that staff will actively engage with a system that supports informal feedback to co-workers about their behaviours and is facilitated by trained peer messengers.

The relationships between certified nursing assistants' voice behaviour and job satisfaction, work engagement and turnover intentions: A two-wave survey study.

AIM: Whereas voice behaviour has been identified as a key precursor to safe and high-quality patient care, little is known about how voice relates to key workforce outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the relationships between certified nursing assistants' perceived promotive voice behaviour (speaking up with suggestions for future improvement) and prohibitive voice behaviour (speaking up about problems or potentially harmful situations) and their self-reported levels of job satisfaction, work engagement and turnover intentions. DESIGN AND METHODS: Dutch certified nursing assistants were recruited for a two-wave survey study through non-random convenience sampling. The final sample contained 152 respondents. The data were analysed using multiple linear regression analyses. In all analyses, the dependent variable at time one was controlled for. RESULTS: Certified nursing assistants' promotive and prohibitive voice behaviour at time one were found to be positively related to their level of job satisfaction at time two while controlling for job satisfaction at time one. No relationships with work engagement or occupational turnover intentions were found. CONCLUSION: While previous research has found positive effects of voice on patient safety outcomes and team and organizational improvements in care organizations, we demonstrate that voice is also related to a key workforce outcome, that is, certified nursing assistants' job satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS AND IMPACT: Recognizing the interplay between voice behaviour and job satisfaction underscores the importance of creating work environments where certified nursing assistants feel able and willing to make their voices heard-with ideas and suggestions, as well as information regarding problems and concerns. PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Three certified nursing assistants have contributed to the development of the survey.

To Speak Up or Not to Speak Up, Organisational and Individual Antecedents That Undergird This Behaviour in Resource Constrained Region.

AIM: To examine the organisational (i.e., perceived organisational support and psychologically safe environment) and individual (i.e., value, belief and norm) antecedents that strengthen healthcare workers' speaking-up behaviour in a developing economy. DESIGN: The study uses a cross-sectional design to gather the same data from healthcare workers within the Ashanti Region of Ghana. METHODS: The data collection happened between 15 June and 30 August 2023. A sample of 380 healthcare workers was selected from 20 facilities in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. A configurational approach, a fussy-set qualitative comparative analysis, was used to identify the configurations that caused high and low speaking-up behaviour among the study sample. RESULTS: The study results reveal that whereas four configurations generate high speaking-up behaviour, three configurations, by contrast, produce low speaking-up behaviour among healthcare workers. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that in so far as organisational support systems which take the form of a psychologically safe environment and perceived organisational support are vital in relaxing the hierarchical boundaries in a healthcare setting to improve healthcare workers' speaking-up behaviour, the individual value-based factors that take the form of values, beliefs and norms are indispensable as it provides the healthcare workers with the necessary inner drive to regard speaking-up behaviour on patient safety and care as a moral duty. IMPACT: Healthcare workers' speaking-up behaviour is better achieved when organisational support systems complement the individual norms, values and beliefs of the individual. REPORTING METHOD: Adhered to Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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.

Adaptation and validation of a Korean version of the speaking up about patient safety questionnaire (KSUPS-Q).

BACKGROUND: Speaking up by healthcare providers is an essential assertive communication strategy for ensuring patient safety and preventing incidents. However, more is needed to know about speaking up and instruments to assess it in the Korean context. Therefore, we assessed the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (KSUPS-Q) for measuring speaking up-related behavior and climate among nurses. METHODS: The translation and adaptation process followed the guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the World Health Organization. Content validity was assessed by a six-member expert panel using the content validity index. In total, 314 nurses participated in an online survey to examine the psychometric properties. Internal consistencies were tested using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the subscales' construct. The convergent validity of the speaking up-related climate scale was assessed by testing correlations with teamwork and safety climate domains of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. In addition, we investigated the convergent validity of the speaking up-related behavior scale by examining its correlation with the climate scale. RESULTS: The reliability of the 11-item behavior scale was satisfactory. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that a three-subscale model (perceived concerns, withholding voice, and speaking up) was appropriate (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, and SRMR = 0.05). Furthermore, the 11-item climate scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency. A three-subscale model (psychological safety, encouraging environment, and resignation) was confirmed (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, and SRMR = 0.05). The convergent validity of the climate scale was verified based on correlations with the teamwork (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and safety climate (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) domains of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. In addition, speaking up-related behavior and climate showed a significant association, indicating that the behavior scale is conceptually valid. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the KSUPS-Q is a valid and reliable instrument in Korea. This instrument can help nurse managers simultaneously monitor the behavior and climate of their organizations and evaluate the outcomes of interventions to enhance speaking up. Future research is needed to explore diverse factors contributing to speaking up, including clinical roles, team relationships, and supportive culture, to identify areas requiring further improvement.

Opportunities for nurses to address employee voice in health care providers: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Employees' decision to speak up or to stay silent can have implications for health care providers, employees and people who need care. As a result, a shift is needed from blindly following guidelines to implementing a sustainable proactive organizational culture in which employees, especially nurses, can evaluate their work environment and take advantage of growth opportunities. The aim of this review is to analyse the characteristics of employee voice opportunities in the health care context, particularly for nurses. METHODS: The search was conducted in April 2023 in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, CINHAL via EBSCO, Scopus via Elsevier, Wiley/Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The search results were imported into the COVIDENCE program and screened by two researchers separately. We used the following search components: health care organization, opportunities, and employee voice. The review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We identified 951 studies in five databases and via citation tracking. After we removed 102 duplicates and screening 839 titles and abstracts, 23 full texts were assessed. According to our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 9 studies. RESULTS: Three main characteristics of employee voice opportunities that need to be considered to enable nurses to have a voice in the organization were identified. These main categories are individual factors, organizational culture, and available voice channels. It is not possible to rank them in order of importance; they are interrelated. CONCLUSIONS: To conclude, employee voice is a process. In order for utilize employee voice opportunities, individual employee factors, organizational culture and its embedded context must be considered. Individual internal and external motivation, which is influenced by socio-cultural aspects and work hierarchies, must also be considered for successful use of opportunities.

The application of communication accommodation theory to understand receiver reactions in healthcare speaking up interactions.

Speaking up for patient safety is a well-documented, complex communication interaction, which is challenging both to teach and to implement into practice. In this study we used Communication Accommodation Theory to explore receivers' perceptions and their self-reported behaviors during an actual speaking up interaction in a health context. Intergroup dynamics were evident across interactions. Where seniority of the participants was salient, the within-profession interactions had more influence on the receiver's initial reactions and overall evaluation of the message, compared to the between profession interactions. Most of the seniority salient interactions occurred down the hierarchy, where a more senior professional ingroup member delivered the speaking up message to a more junior receiver. These senior speaker interactions elicited fear and impeded the receiver's voice. We found that nurses/midwives and allied health clinicians reported using different communication behaviors in speaking up interactions. We propose that the term "speaking up" be changed, to emphasize receivers' reactions when they are spoken up to, to help receivers engage in more mutually beneficial communication strategies.

The Speaking Up Climate of Nurses for Patient Safety Concerns and Unprofessional Behaviors: The Effects of Teamwork and Safety Climate.

PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate the influence of teamwork and safety climate on nurses' speaking up for patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors. DESIGN: This study incorporates a cross-sectional research design. METHODS: The study included 217 surgical nurses employed in a Turkish university hospital. The research data were collected between April and June 2023 using the Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate Survey, Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety, and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism instruments. The relationships between these scales were assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. The Turkish validity and reliability of the Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism scales were verified. The research model was tested using path analysis. FINDINGS: The mean age of the 217 surgical nurses was 25.88 ± 5.64 years. Teamwork climate showed a positive effect on safety climate and speaking up climate about patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors. Safety climate showed a positive association with nurses' speaking up climate about patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Teamwork climate and safety climate both positively affect the speaking up climate about patient safety concerns and unprofessional behaviors. Nurse managers who wish to promote a culture of speaking up about patient safety and unprofessional behaviors should prioritize improvements in the teamwork climate and safety climate.

Middle manager responses to hospital co-workers' unprofessional behaviours within the context of a professional accountability culture change program: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The critical role that middle managers play in enacting organisational culture change designed to address unprofessional co-worker behaviours has gone largely unexplored. We aimed to explore middle managers' perspectives on i) whether they speak up when they or their team members experience unprofessional behaviours (UBs); ii) how concerns are handled; iii) the outcomes; and iv) the role of a professional accountability culture change program (known as Ethos) in driving change. METHODS: Qualitative, constructivist approach. Five metropolitan hospitals in Australia which had implemented Ethos. Purposive sampling was used to invite middle-level managers from medicine, nursing, and non-clinical support services. Semi-structured interviews conducted remotely. Inductive, reflexive thematic and descriptive thematic analyses undertaken using NVivo. RESULTS: Thirty interviews (approximately 60 min; August 2020 to May 2021): Nursing (n = 12), Support Services (n = 10), and Medical (n = 8) staff, working in public (n = 18) and private (n = 12) hospitals. One-third (n = 10) had a formal role in Ethos. All middle managers (hearers) had experienced the raising of UBs by their team (speakers). Themes representing reasons for ongoing UBs were: staying silent but active; history and hierarchy; and double-edged swords. The Ethos program was valued as a confidential, informal, non-punitive system but required improvements in profile and effectiveness. Participants described four response stages: i) determining if reports were genuine; ii) taking action depending on the speaker's preference, behaviour factors (type, frequency, impact), if the person was known/unknown; iii) exploring for additional information; and iv) addressing either indirectly (e.g., change rosters) or directly (e.g., become a speaker). CONCLUSIONS: Addressing UBs requires an organisational-level approach beyond supporting staff to speak up, to include those hearing and addressing UBs. We propose a new hearer's model that details middle managers' processes after a concern is raised, identifying where action can be taken to minimise avoidant behaviours to improve hospital culture, staff and patient safety.

Exploration of students' reaction in medical error events and the impact of personalized training on the speaking-up behavior in medical error events.

BACKGROUND: The ability of medical students to speak up before a medical error occurs is a timely and necessary interaction to prevent potential patient harm. As it may be crucial to improve patient safety, we explored how medical students react to a medical error and provided them appropriate training regarding speaking up about medical issues. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in Taiwan involving 153 medical students who participated in a speaking-up simulation course. They were divided into two groups. The first group participated in a non-life-threatening scenario before the intervention, followed by a personalized debriefing session, then a life-threatening scenario after the intervention. The second group participated in a life-threatening scenario before the intervention, followed by a personalized debriefing session, then a non-life-threatening scenario after the intervention. Students also completed patient safety attitude survey. RESULTS: During the preintervention scenario, the overall medical students' speaking-up rate to medical error was 45.1%. The speaking-up rate of medical students in life-threatening scenario was significantly higher than the rate in non-life-threatening scenario before the intervention (64.6% vs 24.3%, p < 0.001). After personalized debriefing, the speaking-up rate to medical errors was significantly improved both in life-threatening scenarios (95.9%, p < 0.001) and in non-life-threatening scenarios (100%, p < 0.001). Male medical students had significantly higher speaking-up rates than female students in life-threatening scenario (76.2% vs 51.4%, p = 0.02). On post-intervention surveys, students provided several reasons for their likelihood of speaking up or remaining silent during a medical error event. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students' rate of speaking-up to medical error was higher in a simulated life-threatening scenario than in a simulated non-life-threatening scenario. Faculty-led personalized debriefing can facilitate medical students' adoption of communication strategies to speak up more in medical error events. Educators should also consider gender differences when they design effective assertive communication courses.[Box: see text].

The influence of professional identity on how the receiver receives and responds to a speaking up message: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Research focused on understanding what enables or hinders health professionals to speak up about a safety concern has been to date predominately atheoretical and speaker focused. However, the role the receiver of the message plays in these often-difficult encounters is highly influential. To date, speaking up programs have created conversational mnemonics that technically should respectfully engage the receiver, yet speaking up remains challenging. This paper utilises Communication Accommodation Theory to explore the impact the communication behaviour and speaker characteristics has on the receiver of a speaking up message, and if these impacts differ between receiver groups (clinical disciplines). METHOD: Clinicians (N = 208) from varying disciplines responded to two hypothetical speaking up vignettes, where participants were the receivers of speaking up messages. Analysis of variance was used to explore any potential differences between receiver groups. RESULTS: Findings indicated that the level of perceived accommodation and group membership, whether defined by speaker discipline or seniority, collectively influenced how the receiver of a speaking up message evaluated the interaction, which influenced their anticipated response to the speaker. CONCLUSIONS: The receiver's perceptions and evaluations of the message, their own professional identity and the presence of others, influenced receivers' anticipated responses. This has direct implications on healthcare speaking up training and provision of care, as the varying clinical disciplines received and responded to the same messages differently.

Ideological dilemmas of healthcare professionals who do not speak up at interprofessional team meetings.

In healthcare settings, speaking up is considered essential for patient safety. Indeed, voice opportunities are widely available mandatory mechanisms for speaking up at the routine interprofessional team meetings of our study site. Yet, healthcare professionals in team meetings often do not go beyond straightforward reporting of test results and biomedical-functional parameters, suggesting that members with psycho-social information related to the patient are not participating fully in team meetings. Post-meeting interviews with some of the team members revealed the moments of silence and the ideological contradictions underlying team discussions. We explored silences and contradictions as argumentative meanings inherent in naturally occurring speech. The identification of opposing meanings tells of ideological dilemmas that may explain why healthcare practitioners do not speak up vigorously. We identified three such dilemmas: the ideology of working in teams versus the ideology of working solo; the ideology of autonomy versus the ideology of paternalism; and the ideology of collectivism versus the ideology of individuality. The dilemmas made visible the dimensions of silence as well as silencing as an imposition of silence from above. We suggest focussing on mapping disciplinary and interpretive differences and their effects amongst team members may motivate voice. Further studies should explore the affective dimensions of silence in interprofessional team meetings.

Setting the stage for speaking up: psychological safety and directing care in acute care collaboration.

Managing a safe and efficient anaesthetic induction within a team involves the challenge of when, if, and how to surface, discuss, and implement the best plan on how to proceed. The Lemke and colleagues study in this issue of the British Journal of Anaesthesia is a unique view into real-world conversations that naturally occur in anaesthesia teams in moments of high task and cognitive load, such as induction of anaesthesia. The study spotlights important small moments of physician, nurse, and trainee team coordination. It illuminates key patterns of conversation in naturally occurring anaesthesia teams, and raises important questions about what the speaking up standard should be and the psychological safety-shaping role consultants play in setting the norms for speaking up.

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.

A state-of-the-art review of speaking up in healthcare.

Throughout healthcare, including education, the need for voicing of concern by speaking up is a globally recognized issue that has come to the fore in the last ten years. There has been a rapid growth in the number of review articles on the topic. To prevent diffusion of knowledge and support future research it is necessary to gather the existing knowledge in a single place. The purpose of the present article is to bring together the existing reviews on speaking up to create a source of unified knowledge representing the current "State of the Art" to advance future research and practice. A State-of-the-Art review was conducted to synthesize the existing knowledge on speaking up. Six databases were searched. Fourteen review articles spanning 2012 to 2021 were identified. Five main research questions have been investigated in the literature and five common recommendations for improvement are made, the knowledge across all reviews related to the research questions and recommendations was synthesized. Additionally, simulation-based research was frequently identified as an important though limited method. Further issues in the literature are identified and recommendations for improvement are made. A synthesis was successfully developed: knowledge about speaking up and research related to speaking up is in an emergent state with more shortcomings, questions, and avenues for improvement than certitude. The whys and how of speaking up remain open questions.

A behavioural study of obedience in health professional students.

Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (IPECP) is a field of study suggested to improve team functioning and patient safety. However, even interprofessional teams are susceptible to group pressures which may inhibit speaking up (positive deviance). Obedience is one group pressure that can inhibit positive deviance leading to negative patient outcomes. To examine the influence of obedience to authority in an interprofessional setting, an experimental simulated clinical scenario was conducted with Respiratory Therapy (RT) (n = 40) and Advanced Care Paramedic (ACP) (n = 20) students. In an airway management scenario, it was necessary for students to challenge an authority, a senior anesthesiologist, to prevent patient harm. In a 2 × 2 design cognitive load and an interventional writing task designed to increase positive deviance were tested. The effect of individual characteristics, including Moral Foundations, and displacement of responsibility were also examined. There was a significant effect for profession and cognitive load: RT students demonstrated lower levels of positive deviance in the low cognitive load scenario than students in other conditions. The writing task did not have a significant effect on RT or ACP students' behaviour. The influence of Moral Foundations differed from expectations, In Group Loyalty was selected as a negative predictor of positive deviance while Respect for Authority was not. Displacement of responsibility was influential for some participants thought not for all. Other individual variables were identified for further investigation. Observational analysis of the simulation videos was conducted to obtain further insight into student behaviour in a compliance scenario. Individual differences, including experience, should be considered when providing education and training for positive deviance. Simulation provides an ideal setting to use compliance scenarios to train for positive deviance and for experimentation to study interprofessional team behaviour.

Unprofessional behaviours experienced by hospital staff: qualitative analysis of narrative comments in a longitudinal survey across seven hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviours of healthcare staff have negative impacts on organisational outcomes, patient safety and staff well-being. The objective of this study was to undertake a qualitative analysis of narrative responses from the Longitudinal Investigation of Negative Behaviours survey (LION), to develop a comprehensive understanding of hospital staff experiences of unprofessional behaviours and their impact on staff and patients. The LION survey identified staff experiences and perceptions related to unprofessional behaviours within hospitals. METHODS: Two open-ended questions within the LION survey invited descriptions of unprofessional staff behaviours across seven hospitals in three Australian states between December 2017 and November 2018. Respondents were from medical, nursing, allied health, management, and support services roles in the hospitals. Data were qualitatively analysed using Directed Content Analysis (DCA). RESULTS: From 5178 LION survey responses, 32% (n = 1636) of participants responded to the two open-ended questions exploring staff experiences of unprofessional behaviours across the hospital sites surveyed. Three primary themes and 11 secondary themes were identified spanning, i) individual unprofessional behaviours, ii) negative impacts of unprofessional behaviours on staff well-being, psychological safety, and employee experience, as well as on patient care, well-being, and safety, and iii) organisational factors associated with staff unprofessional behaviours. CONCLUSION: Unprofessional behaviours are experienced by hospital staff across all professional groups and functions. Staff conceptualise, perceive and experience unprofessional behaviours in diverse ways. These behaviours can be understood as enactments that either negatively impact other staff, patients or the organisational outcomes of team cohesion, work efficiency and efficacy. A perceived lack of organisational action based on existing reporting and employee feedback appears to erode employee confidence in hospital leaders and their ability to effectively address and mitigate unprofessional behaviours.

Motivators and inhibitors of nurses' speaking up behaviours: A descriptive qualitative study.

AIMS: To identify factors that motivate or inhibit nurses' speaking up for patient safety. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 nurses from four Korean hospitals between December 2020 and January 2021. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: We identified safety culture, supportive unit managers and role models, positive reactions from or familiarity with others, high-risk situations and personal characteristics and beliefs as motivators of nurses' speaking up. Hierarchies and power differentials, seniority and unit tenure, concerns about relationships, and heavy workloads inhibited nurses' speaking up. CONCLUSION: Individual, organizational and cultural characteristics influence nurses' decisions on whether or not to voice their concerns, suggestions or ideas. Certain characteristics of Korean culture, such as strong hierarchies and the valuing of good relationships, play an important role in nurses' speaking up behaviours. Our findings can be used to inform educational interventions and management expectations about interpersonal behaviours, especially in a culture where age- and seniority-based hierarchies and collectivism are prevalent. IMPACT: Nurses perceived speaking up as a challenging behaviour, and they sometimes withhold their voices even when speaking up is needed for patient safety. We found that individual, organizational, and contextual factors affect the speaking up behaviours of nurses. Nurse managers can create environments that are more supportive of nurses' speaking up behaviours by using inclusive leadership to create psychological safety, by inviting and showing appreciation for staff input, and by helping physicians and senior nurses understand the importance of all nurses' voices. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient or public contribution does not apply to this study as its purpose was to explore the speaking up experiences of nurses themselves.

Nursing practice environment and employee silence about patient safety: The mediating role of professional discrimination experienced by nurses.

AIMS: To examine the associations between nurse work environment with nurses' silence about patient safety and the mediating effects of professional discrimination experienced by nurses. DESIGN: Multicentre cross-sectional study. METHODS: Between January and April 2019, 607 nurses and nursing assistants from seven hospitals in Greece assessed their clinical environment using the 'Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index Revised-PES-NWIR', and the silence about patient safety. The 'Experiences of Discrimination Index' was adapted to specifically address experienced discrimination based on the nursing profession. The PROCESS macros for SPSS were used to examine the above associations. FINDINGS: Better nurse practice environment, with the exception of 'staffing and resource adequacy' dimension, was directly associated with less experienced professional discrimination, and directly and indirectly associated with less silence about patient safety, through the mediating role of professional discrimination experienced by nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Silence about patient safety is dependent on the clinical work environment and may be a response of nurses to discrimination in the work context. Both an improvement in the nurse work environment and a decrease in professional discrimination would minimize silence about patient safety. IMPACT: On many occasions, nurses are directly or indirectly discouraged from voicing their concerns about patient safety or are ignored when they do, leading to employee silence and decreasing the standard of care (Alingh et al., BMJ Quality & Safety, 2019, 28, 39; Pope, Journal of Change Management, 2019, 19, 45). Nurses' work-related determinants for silence are not clearly understood in the patient safety context. A favourably evaluated nurse practice environment is associated with less experienced professional discrimination and less silence about patient safety. To minimize silence about patient safety, both the nurse work environment and the experienced professional discrimination should be taken into consideration by nurse and healthcare managers.