ArticleNursing ethics2019
Clinical governance breakdown: Australian cases of wilful blindness and whistleblowing.
Article in Nursing ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of organizational blindness on nurses' commitment in healthcare settings.Journal of health organization and management · 2026Article
- Safety Listening in High-Risk Situations: A Qualitative Analysis of Responses to Safety Voice in Aviation.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- Institution-Based Quality and Safety Improvement Initiatives in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review.JBJS reviews · 2025Article
- The complaint handler's bind: How organisational constraints lead to defensive responses to criticism.PloS one · 2025Article
- The Ecological Assessment of Responses to Speaking-up tool-development and reliability testing of a method for coding safety listening behavior in naturalistic conversations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Sustaining improvement of hospital-wide initiative for patient safety and quality: a systematic scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Unprofessional conduct by nurses: A document analysis of disciplinary decisions.Nursing ethics · 2022Article
- Uncovering, creating or constructing problems? Enacting a new role to support staff who raise concerns about quality and safety in the English National Health Service.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2021Article
- Mapping clinical governance to practitioner roles and responsibilities.Journal of health organization and management · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter their attempts to have patient safety concerns addressed internally were ignored by wilfully blind managers, nurses from Bundaberg Base Hospital and Macarthur Health Service felt compelled to 'blow the whistle'. Wilful blindness is the human desire to prefer ignorance to knowledge; the responsibility to be informed is shirked.
objectiveTo provide an account of instances of wilful blindness identified in two high-profile cases of nurse whistleblowing in Australia. RESEARCH
designCritical case study methodology using Fay's Critical Social Theory to examine, analyse and interpret existing data generated by the Commissions of Inquiry held into Bundaberg Base Hospital and Macarthur Health Service patient safety breaches. All data was publicly available and assessed according to the requirements of unobtrusive research methods and secondary data analysis. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Data collection for the case studies relied entirely on publicly available documentary sources recounting and detailing past events.
findingsData from both cases reveal managers demonstrating wilful blindness towards patient safety concerns. Concerns were unaddressed; nurses, instead, experienced retaliatory responses leading to a 'social crisis' in the organisation and to whistleblowing.
conclusionManagers tasked with clinical governance must be aware of mechanisms with the potential to blind them. The human tendency to favour positive news and avoid conflict is powerful. Understanding wilful blindness can assist managers' awareness of the competing emotions occurring in response to ethical challenges, such as whistleblowing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.