4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Systematic review of the prevalence, impact and mitigating strategies for bullying, undermining behaviour and harassment in the surgical workplace

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 105, Issue 11, Pages 1390-1397

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10926

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundBullying, undermining behaviour and harassment (BUBH) have been reported in entertainment, politics and sport. Such behaviours may also be common in surgery, and are frequently associated with poor patient care and inferior outcomes. The aim was to define the prevalence and impact of this behaviour in the international surgical workplace, and to explore counterstrategies. MethodsA systematic review was conducted by searching EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in August 2017. Original research studies (Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine levels 1-4) investigating the prevalence and impact of BUBH in surgery, and/or counterstrategies, were eligible for inclusion. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. ResultsOf 2692 papers, 32 were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-two reported the prevalence of BUBH in surgery, 11 studied the impact of this behaviour and six investigated counterstrategies. Prevalence data showed that BUBH are common in the surgical workplace. Their impact can be profound, compromising mental health, reducing job satisfaction, and inducing suicidal ideation. Formal reporting systems were perceived as ineffective and even potentially harmful to victims. ConclusionBullying, undermining behaviour and harassment are highly prevalent within surgery, and extremely damaging to victims. There is little high-quality research into counterstrategies, although professionalism training using simulated scenarios may be useful. Common and damaging

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