One of the current challenges to increase patient safety is to improve the patient safety culture (Verbakel et al., 2014). An important factor in a good patient safety culture is psychological...Show moreOne of the current challenges to increase patient safety is to improve the patient safety culture (Verbakel et al., 2014). An important factor in a good patient safety culture is psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). It is important that personnel feels free to speal up about mistakes or possible improvement to enhance patient safety. However, speaking up about mistakes may harm the perception towards your competence as an individual. Therefore, the perception of others is important when speaking up about mistakes, and may harm the psychological safety someone experiences. To increase the psychological safety it is therefore important to understand the influence of the perception of others on psychological safety. In this study two goals are formulated: 1) map the perception of others in the three departments in Hospital A. 2) Investigate the relation between the perception of others and psychological safety. The second goal is investigated with use of the following hypotheses: 1) Physician Assistants have a high perceived competence score, compared to Nurses, 2) Nurses have a high warmth score and low competence score, compared to Physician Assistants, 3) Specialists gave a high competence score, as perceived by Physician Assistants and Nurses, 4) The psychological safety level is lower in Nurses, compared to Physician Assistants. To answer these hypotheses mixed-methods design is used, gathering data from online questionnaires (N = 39), which were the SCM questionnaire (Fiske et al., 2002) and the Psychological safety questionnaire (Garvin et al., 2008), observations of quality meetings (N = 13) and semi-structured interviews (N = 3). The questionnaires were first tested on a M-Turk sample of healthcare personnel, to identify the internal consistency of the questionnaires in a healthcare setting. Results showed a significant difference in perception of the competence score of Physician Assistants, with Nurses perceiving the competence level lower than the Physician Assistants. Moreover, the perceived warmth score of Nurses were found to be significantly higher within Physician Assistants, compared to Nurses. This result was not found in the perceived competence score of the Nurses. Furthermore, the perceived competence score of Specialists was found to be non-significant when comparing the perception of Nurses and Physician Assistants. At last, the psychological safety level of Nurses and Physician Assistants did not differ significantly. These results indicate that the experienced hierarchy in Hospital A is less present than originally thought. Furthermore, no correlation was found between the perception of others and psychological safety within Hospital A. However, due to the small sample size we must be cautious with drawing conclusion of the results and more research is needed to gain more insight in the current situation at Hospital A.Show less
In scientific literature, noise and noise annoyance are almost inseparable. While different environmental noise sources can cause various responses, the most common reaction to noise is irritation....Show moreIn scientific literature, noise and noise annoyance are almost inseparable. While different environmental noise sources can cause various responses, the most common reaction to noise is irritation. Several studies have focused on one aspect of noise annoyance, such as attitudes or health. However, a comprehensive picture of factors contributing to noise annoyance is not drafted yet, so this study aims to fill that gap. The study was conducted remotely for ten consecutive days in the daily life of 32 participants. It consisted of two main tasks: (1) wearing an activity tracker and (2) submitting flyover events into the NLR study app. We hypothesised that healthy coping mechanisms would predict lower reported noise annoyance and that predictors of higher reported noise annoyance are more negative attitudes, prevalent unhealthy coping habits, perceived louder and higher-pitched flyovers, and perceived lengthier flyover events. The main questionnaires analysed in this study to test the hypotheses were the ICBEN 11-point scale, BriefCOPE and the attitude component from the NORAH study. Attitudes and coping mechanisms are not verified as predictors in this study. The results do imply that subjective volume, subjective pitch, and subjective duration of a flyover event are good predictors of reported noise annoyance. Further research is needed to explore how subjective volume, pitch, and exposure duration as intervention targets can help reduce aircraft noise disruptions in individuals that live in affected areas.Show less
One in every ten hospitalized patients suffers from an unintended or undesirable outcome of treatment, often referred to as complications. Organizations in healthcare need to learn from these...Show moreOne in every ten hospitalized patients suffers from an unintended or undesirable outcome of treatment, often referred to as complications. Organizations in healthcare need to learn from these events to prevent recurrences and improve patient safety. However, the methods used to learn from these complications do not appear to have the desired effect, evident from the absence of a decrease in complications. To improve learning processes, it is necessary to know which steps hamper the learning process, thereby hindering optimal learning. For this pilot study the theoretical framework ‘Learning from Incidents Process’ (LFIP) (Drupsteen et al., 2013) is introduced in the healthcare domain. Originally the framework was developed for the (non-healthcare) industry to identify bottlenecks that inhibit learning processes and to get an indication of the use of learning potential throughout the process. The model is renamed as ‘Learning from Complications Process’ (LFCP) to fit the healthcare context. With this study the LFCP-model is introduced and applied in a hospital setting, aiming to answer the following research questions (1) Are the steps in the LFCP formally arranged and executed at Hospital X and how well do they work according to the medical staff? (2) At what steps in the LFCP does the medical staff experience bottlenecks, that hamper the learning process and its outcomes? (3) To what extent does psychological safety influence this learning process? The internal consistency of the LFCP-questionnaire was tested on an M-Turk sample of healthcare employees, to justify use within a healthcare setting. To answer the hypotheses, a mixed-methods design is applied. The data for this study were gathered by use of online questionnaires (N = 6), semi-structured interviews (N = 3) and online observations (N = 13). It is expected to find results indicating sub-optimal use of learning potential, and a diversity of bottlenecks throughout the LFCP. Results showed a significant decline in formally arranged, executed and quality of executed steps throughout the LFCP. Consequently, the use of learning potential followed this line of decline, with the biggest loss of learning potential at the evaluation stage. Bottlenecks were identified after stage 1 ‘Understanding causation’. However, no correlation was found between psychological safety and the LFCP. These results indicate that there is ample room to improve the quality of the learning processes, implying that patient safety can be further enhanced by improving the quality of total learning processes. For the future the LFCP-model can be used as a tool to quantify results of interventions to improve the quality of learning processes. Because of the small sample size this pilot study is a proof of concept. Therefore, no hard inferences can be drawn, and results should be treated with the utmost caution.Show less
A hospital in the Netherlands is currently investigating where they are standing in terms of a safe learning environment. This is investigated to eventually implement Safety-II within their work-...Show moreA hospital in the Netherlands is currently investigating where they are standing in terms of a safe learning environment. This is investigated to eventually implement Safety-II within their work- and learn processes. The safety management approach of Safety-II emphasizes how safety is achieved in daily work. Since speaking up is an important factor for learning and improvement, this study aimed to examine the status of psychological safety among healthcare workers at the Dutch hospital. To address current problems surrounding staff shortage in healthcare, we additionally aimed to investigate how healthcare workers could be retained to their hospital work environment. This pilot study researched the relationship between perceived organizational support (POS), psychological safety, and affective organizational commitment (AOC). Drawing on previous theories, we hypothesized and examined a mediator model predicting AOC. A mixed-method design was used for an in-depth understanding of POS, AOC, and psychological safety among healthcare professionals (N = 38) of a Dutch hospital. The data was collected through a survey, online observations during team meetings, and three interviews. This study provides new support to the importance of POS for organizational commitment. Results showed that POS increased psychological safety among healthcare professionals. Adding to the literature, it was found that in particular support from team leaders was important for higher levels of psychological safety. Our findings also indicate that POS has a positive impact on AOC, but this was not mediated by psychological safety. More research is required to better understand how POS exactly contributes to AOC. Based on our findings, we recommend including perceived support from team leaders within further research on psychological safety.Show less
This study examines the relationship between the self-determination theory and perceived psychological safety, respectively popularized by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan; and Amy Edmondson. Whereas...Show moreThis study examines the relationship between the self-determination theory and perceived psychological safety, respectively popularized by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan; and Amy Edmondson. Whereas psychological safety has been found to positively contribute to team performance, the self-determination theory is used to assess individual needs and fulfilments, and can be a contributor to individual performance. The aim of this potential relationship is to enable the use and combination of individual-, and team-based strategies more effectively in order to enhance overall performance in organizations. I hypothesized that a significant positive correlation exists between self-determination theory factors and perceived psychological safety, and that the former could be used to predict the latter. The data gathered in an international online survey among people working in the healthcare sector supports that there is a significant positive correlation between the levels of the self-determination theory’s autonomy component and perceived psychological safety. However, when setting up a regression model, I found that the autonomy component of self-determination theory is the only significant predictor for the level of perceived psychological safety. This model explains five percent of the variance in the level of perceived psychological safety, and is thus practically of no use. Secondly, hypothesized that there are no gender-based differences in levels of self-determination theory and perceived psychological safety. In the analysis I found that there are generally no gender- based differences in either of the variables, except for the competence component of self- determination theory. This potentially signifies that men and women prioritize their psychological needs differently, but more research is needed to confirm this. In conclusion, based on the evidence gathered in this study, I cannot conclude that the relationship between self-determination theory and psychological safety can be used in a meaningful way to increase overall performance in the healthcare sector, or other organizations for that matter.Show less
