Speaking Up About Traditional and Professionalism-Related Patient Safety Threats

A National Survey of Interns and Residents

Published in:BMJ Quality & Safety Online First (Epub April 2017).doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006284

Posted on RAND.org on May 25, 2017

by William Martinez, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, Eric J. Thomas, Jason Michel Etchegaray, Julia T. Shelburne, Gerald B. Hickson, Anneliese M. Schleyer, Jennifer A. Best, Natalie B. May, Sigall K. Bell

Read More

Access further information on this document at BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

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.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.