'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.

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.

Silence That Can Be Dangerous: A Vignette Study to Assess Healthcare Professionals' Likelihood of Speaking up about Safety Concerns

PURPOSE To investigate the likelihood of speaking up about patient safety in oncology and to clarify the effect of clinical and situational context factors on the likelihood of voicing concerns. PATIENTS AND METHODS 1013 nurses and doctors in oncology rated four clinical vignettes describing coworkers' errors and rule violations in a self-administered factorial survey (65% response rate). Multiple regression analysis was used to model the likelihood of speaking up as outcome of vignette attributes, responder's evaluations of the situation and personal characteristics. RESULTS Respondents reported a high likelihood of speaking up about patient safety but the variation between and within types of errors and rule violations was substantial. Staff without managerial function provided significantly higher levels of decision difficulty and discomfort to speak up. Based on the information presented in the vignettes, 74%-96% would speak up towards a supervisor failing to check a prescription, 45%-81% would point a coworker to a missed hand disinfection, 82%-94% would speak up towards nurses who violate a safety rule in medication preparation, and 59%-92% would question a doctor violating a safety rule in lumbar puncture. Several vignette attributes predicted the likelihood of speaking up. Perceived potential harm, anticipated discomfort, and decision difficulty were significant predictors of the likelihood of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians' willingness to speak up about patient safety is considerably affected by contextual factors. Physicians and nurses without managerial function report substantial discomfort with speaking up. Oncology departments should provide staff with clear guidance and trainings on when and how to voice safety concerns.

Developing a smoking cessation program for Turkish-speaking migrants in Switzerland: novel findings and promising effects

Introduction: Recent studies show that smoking prevalence in the Turkish-speaking migrant population in Switzerland is substantially higher than in the general population. A specific group treatment for Turkish-speaking migrants was developed and tested in order to provide the migrant population with equal access to smoking cessation programs and to improve the migration-sensitive quality of such programs by sociocultural targeting. Methods: The evaluation of the program included quantitative (questionnaires t1 and t2 and follow-up by telephone) and qualitative methods (participant observation and semi-structured interviews). Results: The results showed that 37.7% of the 61 participants were smoke free at the 12-month follow-up. The factors of being in a partnership and using nicotine replacement products during the program were positively associated with successful cessation. We also demonstrated the importance of “strong ties” (strong relationships between participants) and the sensitivity of the program to sociocultural (e.g., social aspects of smoking in Turkish culture, which were addressed in relapse prevention), socioeconomic (e.g., low financial resources, which were addressed by providing the course for free), and migration-specific (e.g., underdeveloped access to smoking cessation programs, which was addressed using outreach strategy for recruiting) issues. Conclusions: Overall, the smoking cessation program was successfully tested and is now becoming implemented as a regular service of the Swiss Public Health Program for Tobacco Prevention (by the Swiss Association for Smoking Prevention).