Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

Is output performance all about the resources? A fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland

This article refines Lipsky’s (1980) assertion that lacking resources negatively affect output performance. It uses fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to analyse the nuanced interplay of contextual and individual determinants of the output performance of veterinary inspectors as street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland. Moving ‘beyond Lipsky’, the study builds on recent theoretical contributions and a systematic comparison across organizational contexts. Against a widespread assumption, output performance is not all about the resources. The impact of perceived available resources hinges on caseloads, which prove to be more decisive. These contextual factors interact with individual attitudes emerging from diverse public accountabilities. The results contextualize the often-emphasized importance of worker-client interaction. In a setting where clients cannot escape the interaction, street-level bureaucrats are not primarily held accountable by them. Studies of output performance should thus sensibly consider gaps between what is being demanded of and offered to street-level bureaucrats, and the latter’s multiple embeddedness.

Immigrant students’ psychological adjustment in the school context: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on acculturation

This contribution focuses on the characteristics of the school context and their impact on immigrant students’ acculturation and adjustment at school. Research suggests that the ways immigrants acculturate is related to their well being (e.g. Phinney, et al., 2001; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999), although findings have been contradictory across methods and studies (e.g. Rogler, 1991; Escobar & Vega, 2001). Debates in acculturation research currently center on issues of acculturation measurement (e.g. Berry, 2009; Rudmin, 2009), as most research is conducted in the quantitative tradition. In addition, some have suggested (Birman, 2011) that research on acculturation in the tradition of cross-cultural psychology adopts an overly individualistic perspective, and lacks attention to the specific contexts of acculturation. Alternatively, the contextual approach proposes that the relationship between acculturation and adjustment is shaped by the surrounding context (Birman & Simon, 2013). For immigrant children, schools are the setting where the process of acculturation unfolds, and an important context in which to study their adjustment and well being (Birman, et al., 2007; Makarova & Herzog, 2011). Though rarely used in this tradition of acculturation research (Chirkov, 2009), qualitative methods are uniquely suited to gain insight to facilitate theory development, as well as appreciate the contextual nature of the acculturation process. Yet we are not aware of efforts to synthesize the empirical qualitative literature on this topic. Applying the methodology of meta-synthesis for qualitatieve research (Walsh & Downe, 2005) our contribution attempts to integrate results from qualitative studies on impact of acculturation on immigrant students’ psychological adjustment in the school context. For this purpose 84 articles which matched the inclusion criteria were selected. Overall, the results of our study show that within the school context a number of structural as well as process characteristics can be identified as crucial for immigrant youth psychological adjustment. Moreover, our findings indicate that immigrant youths’ psychological adjustment is related to other individual outcomes of acculturation in the school context such as behavioral adjustment, peer-relationships, academic achievement and identity development of immigrant youth.