4.6 Article

Associations of form and function of speaking up in anaesthesia: a prospective observational study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 127, Issue 6, Pages 971-980

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.08.014

Keywords

assertiveness; group processes; interaction; patient safety; responding; speaking up

Categories

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [10001C_169785]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [10001C_169785] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores how anaesthesia care providers speak up in clinical settings and how their colleagues react to it. Findings show that most speak up instances are in the form of opinions, with reactions ranging from short approval to elaboration. Asking questions is associated with increased likelihood of discussing the issue but decreased likelihood of further speak up during the same induction.
Background: Speaking up with concerns in the interest of patient safety has been identified as important for the quality and safety of patient care. The study objectives were to identify how anaesthesia care providers speak up, how their colleagues react to it, whether there is an association among speak up form and reaction, and how this reaction is associated with further speak up. Methods: Data were collected over 3 months at a single centre in Switzerland by observing 49 anaesthesia care providers while performing induction of general anaesthesia in 53 anaesthesia teams. Speaking up and reactions to speaking up were measured by event-based behaviour coding. Results: Instances of speaking up were classified as opinion (59.6%), oblique hint (37.2%), inquiry (30.7%), and observation (16.7%). Most speak up occurred as a combination of different forms. Reactions to speak up included short approval (36.5%), elaboration (35.9%), no verbal reaction (26.3%), or rejection (1.28%). Speaking up was implemented in 89.1% of cases. Inquiry was associated with an increased likelihood of recipients discussing the respective issue (odds ratio [OR]=13.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-31.5; P<0.0001) and with a decreased likelihood of implementing the speak up during the same induction (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88; P=0.03). Reacting with elaboration to the first speak up was associated with decreased further speak up during the same induction (relative risk [RR]=0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.83; P=0.018). Conclusion: Our study provides insights into the form and function of speaking up in clinical environments and points to a perceived dilemma of speaking up via questions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available