The influence of personality on psychological safety, the presence of stress and chosen professional roles in the healthcare environment

Healthcare teams are expected to deliver high quality and safe clinical care, a goal facilitated by an environment of psychological safety. We hypothesised that an individual’s personality would influence psychological safety, perceived stressors in the clinical environment and confer a suitability for different professional roles. Staff members were recruited from the Emergency or Critical Care Departments of one National Health Service Trust. Qualitative interviews explored participants’ experiences of personality, incorporating quantitative surveys to evaluate psychological safety and perceived stressors. The 16 Primary Factor Assessment provided a quantitative measure of personality. Participants demonstrated midrange scores for most personality traits, highlighting an ability to adapt to changing environments and requirements. There was a signal that different personality traits predominated between the two professional groups, and that certain traits were significantly associated with higher psychological safety and certain perceived stressors. Personality was described as having a strong influence on teamwork, the working environment and leadership ability. Our analysis highlights that personality can influence team dynamics and the suitability of individuals for certain clinical roles. Understanding the heterogeneity of personalities of team members and their likely responses to challenge may help leaders to support staff in times of challenge and improve team cohesiveness

Exploring the working environment of Hospital Managers: a mixed methods study investigating stress, stereotypes, psychological safety and individual resilience

Background: Hospital managers are responsible for the delivery of organisational strategy, development of clinical services and maintaining quality standards. There is limited research on hospital managers, in particular how stress manifests and impacts managers and the presence of individual resilience. Managers must work closely with clinical colleagues, however these relationships can be hindered by the perception of stereotyping and differing priorities. This study aimed to explore the working environment of hospital managers, focusing upon the unique stresses faced, psychological safety and the presence of resilience. Methods: This study utilised mixed methodology using an embedded approach. Participants were purposively recruited from all levels of hospital management within one National Health Service Trust in London, United Kingdom. An exploration of managers experiences was undertaken using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Psychological safety and individual resilience were additionally assessed using validated surveys. Qualitative data were analysed iteratively using inductive thematic analysis, and triangulated with quantitative data. Kruskal-Wallis statistical analysis was performed to evaluate differences in resilience and psychological safety according to seniority and background experience. Results: Twenty-two managers were recruited and interviewed, with 20 returning completed surveys. Key findings from the thematic analysis included the importance of good working relationships with clinical colleagues, the persistence of some stereotyping, and feeling unsupported in times of challenge. Stresses described included the bureaucracy involved when delivering change, conflict with colleagues and target driven expectations. Participants described their own psychological safety as lower than desired, supported by quantitative data; but recognised its importance and strived to create it within their own teams. Sixteen participants had ‘normal’ scores for resilience, with senior managers more likely to have higher scores than those more junior (p=0.011). Conclusion: Positive working relationships, high psychological safety and individual resilience are important for organisational safety and individual wellbeing. Our data illustrate unique stressors faced by hospital managers, provide detail on sometimes challenging working relationships, and demonstrate scope to improve both the psychological safety and resilience of those in managerial positions. A map for senior healthcare leaders was constructed, facilitating the identification of modifiable areas within their organisation to promote good working relationships and improve the working environment of hospital managers

Understanding the facilitators and barriers to barcode medication administration by nursing staff using behavioural science frameworks. A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION: Barcode medication administration (BCMA) technology helps ensure correct medications are administered by nursing staff through scanning of patient and medication barcodes. In many hospitals scanning rates are low, limiting the potential safety benefits. We aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to BCMA use in a London hospital. METHODS: In this mixed methods study we used local quantitative data on BCMA scanning rates to identify clinically similar wards (in terms of patient acuity and workload) with different scanning rates for qualitative exploration. Interviews designed to elicit barriers to using BCMA technology were conducted with nursing staff, supported by observations of medication administration. Qualitative data were analysed inductively and a thematic framework constructed housing key themes, subsequently categorised into barriers and facilitators. To explore patient perspectives of BCMA scanning, a purposive sample of patients were also interviewed. These patient data were analysed deductively according to the thematic framework. Themes were mapped to behavioural science frameworks to further understand the behaviours involved. RESULTS: BCMA was operational on 15 wards, with only six having medication scan rates of more than 10% of scannable doses. Of three wards selected for qualitative investigation, the lowest scan rate was 6.7%. Twenty-seven nurses and 15 patients were interviewed. Eleven key themes were identified, encompassing both barriers and facilitators to BCMA use. Barriers included poor trolley ergonomics and perceived time inefficiency. Facilitators included a streamlined process and thorough training. All nurses described BCMA as positive for patient safety. Patients described BCMA as making them "feel safer". Behavioural science frameworks highlighted the importance of professional role and an individual's belief in their capability. CONCLUSION: We present a novel exploration of facilitators and barriers to BCMA use from the viewpoint of both patients and nursing staff, highlighting a strong perception that BCMA enhances safety. Barriers were reported on both high and low usage wards, demonstrating the importance of behaviours and motivations. These findings provide a detailed understanding from which to design interventions to support behaviour change and increase BCMA use

Raising the barcode: improving medication safety behaviours through a behavioural science-informed feedback intervention. A quality improvement project and difference-in-difference analysis

Barcode medication administration (BCMA) technology can improve patient safety by using scanning technology to ensure the right drug and dose are given to the right patient. Implementation can be challenging, requiring adoption of different workflows by nursing staff. In one London National Health Service trust scanning rates were lower than desired at around 0-20% of doses per ward. Our objective was to encourage patient safety behaviours in the form of medication scanning through implementation of a feedback intervention. This was informed by behavioural science, codesigned with nurses and informed by known barriers to use. Five wards were selected to trial the intervention over an 18-week period beginning August 2021. The remaining 14 hospital wards acted as controls. Intervention wards had varying uptake of BCMA at baseline and represented a range of specialties. A bespoke feedback intervention comprising three behavioural science constructs (gamification, the messenger effect and framing) was delivered to each intervention ward each week. A linear difference-in-difference analysis was used to evaluate the impact of our intervention on scan rates, both for the overall 18-week period and at two weekly intervals within this timeframe. We identified a 23.1 percentage point increase in medication scan rates (from an average baseline of 15.0% to 38.1%) on the intervention wards compared with control (p<0.001) following implementation of the intervention. Feedback had most impact in the first 6 weeks, with an initial percentage point increase of 26.3 (p<0.001), which subsequently plateaued. Neither clinical specialty nor number of beds on each ward were significant factors in our models. Our study demonstrated that a feedback intervention, codesigned with end users and incorporating behavioural science constructs, can lead to a significant increase in the adoption of BCMA scanning

Lived experiences of healthcare workers on the front line during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the presence of perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in healthcare professionals. As the timeframe for this study spanned the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were captured demonstrating the impact of the pandemic on these factors.DesignQualitative interview study.SettingAll staff working within the emergency and critical care departments of one National Health Service Trust in London, UK.ParticipantsForty-nine participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique and interviewed when the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had subsided.Main outcome measuresEvaluation of changes in perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in individuals working during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThe thematic analysis relating to a participant’s lived experiences while working during COVID-19 led to the construction of five key themes, including ‘psychological effects’ and ‘changes in team dynamics’. Several psychological effects were described, including the presence of psychological distress and insights into the aetiology of moral injury. There was marked heterogeneity in participants’ response to COVID-19, particularly with respect to changes in team dynamics and the perception of a psychologically safe environment. Descriptions of improved team cohesiveness and camaraderie contrasted with stories of new barriers, notably due to the high workload and the impact of personal protective equipment. Building on these themes, a map of key changes arising due to the pandemic was developed, highlighting potential opportunities to provide targeted support.ConclusionsWorking on the front line of a pandemic can have significant implications for healthcare workers, putting them at risk of psychological distress and moral injury, as well as affecting team dynamics. There is striking heterogeneity in the manifestation of these challenges. Team leaders can use the themes and qualitative data from this study to help identify areas for management focus and individual and team support.</jats:sec

Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff

ObjectivesThis study aimed to quantify the presence of psychological safety (defined as an environment ‘safe for interpersonal risk taking’) in critical care staff, exploring the ways in which this manifested.DesignQualitative interview study incorporating a short quantitative survey.SettingThree intensive care units within one National Health Service Trust in London.ParticipantsThirty participants were recruited from all levels of seniority and roles within the multidisciplinary team. A purposive sampling technique was used, with recruitment ceasing at the point of thematic saturation.InterventionsSemistructured interviews explored attitudes towards psychological safety and contained a quantitative assessment measuring the climate of psychological safety present.ResultsTwenty-eight participants agreed that it was easy to ask for help, with 20 agreeing it is safe to take a risk on the team, demonstrating a strong perception of psychological safety in this group.Our thematic analysis highlighted areas where the context influenced an individual’s psychological safety including personality, culture and leadership. Possible negative consequences of psychological safety included distraction and fatigue for the team leader. We demonstrated that speaking up can be influenced by motivations other than patient safety, such as undermining or self-promotion.ConclusionsOur data demonstrate reassuring levels of psychological safety within the participants studied. This allowed us to explore in depth the participant experience of working within a psychologically safe environment. We add to the current literature by uniquely demonstrating there can be negative consequences to a psychologically safe environment in the healthcare setting. We expand on the influence of context on psychological safety by developing a model, allowing leaders to identify which elements of context can be modified in order to promote speaking up. Team leaders can use these data to help foster a culture of openness, innovation and error prevention while minimising the risk of negative implications</jats:sec

The influence of personality on psychological safety, the presence of stress and chosen professional roles in the healthcare environment.

Healthcare teams are expected to deliver high quality and safe clinical care, a goal facilitated by an environment of psychological safety. We hypothesised that an individual's personality would influence psychological safety, perceived stressors in the clinical environment and confer a suitability for different professional roles. Staff members were recruited from the Emergency or Critical Care Departments of one National Health Service Trust. Qualitative interviews explored participants' experiences of personality, incorporating quantitative surveys to evaluate psychological safety and perceived stressors. The 16 Primary Factor Assessment provided a quantitative measure of personality. Participants demonstrated midrange scores for most personality traits, highlighting an ability to adapt to changing environments and requirements. There was a signal that different personality traits predominated between the two professional groups, and that certain traits were significantly associated with higher psychological safety and certain perceived stressors. Personality was described as having a strong influence on teamwork, the working environment and leadership ability. Our analysis highlights that personality can influence team dynamics and the suitability of individuals for certain clinical roles. Understanding the heterogeneity of personalities of team members and their likely responses to challenge may help leaders to support staff in times of challenge and improve team cohesiveness

Participant agreement with measures of psychological safety according to clinical department.

Participant agreement with measures of psychological safety according to clinical department.</p