Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29459365›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018

Making soft intelligence hard: a multi-site qualitative study of challenges relating to voice about safety concerns.

Graham P Martin, Emma-Louise Aveling, Anne Campbell, Carolyn Tarrant, Peter J Pronovost, Imogen Mitchell, Christian Dankers, David Bates, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. "I feel I have no voice": hospital doctors' workplace silence in Ireland.Journal of health organization and management · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Graham P MartinDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Emma-Louise AvelingTH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Anne CampbellSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Carolyn TarrantDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Peter J PronovostUnitedHealthcare, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA.
Imogen MitchellAustralian National University Medical School, Canberra, Australia.
Christian DankersDepartment of Quality and Safety, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David BatesDivision of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Mary Dixon-WoodsTHIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT097899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare organisations often fail to harvest and make use of the 'soft intelligence' about safety and quality concerns held by their own personnel. We aimed to examine the role of formal channels in encouraging or inhibiting employee voice about concerns.

methodsQualitative study involving personnel from three academic hospitals in two countries. Interviews were conducted with 165 participants from a wide range of occupational and professional backgrounds, including senior leaders and those from the sharp end of care. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

resultsLeaders reported that they valued employee voice; they identified formal organisational channels as a key route for the expression of concerns by employees. Formal channels and processes were designed to ensure fairness, account for all available evidence and achieve appropriate resolution. When processed through these formal systems, concerns were destined to become evidenced, formal and tractable to organisational intervention. But the way these systems operated meant that some concerns were never voiced. Participants were anxious about having to process their suspicions and concerns into hard evidentiary facts, and they feared being drawn into official procedures designed to allocate consequence. Anxiety about evidence and process was particularly relevant when the intelligence was especially 'soft'-feelings or intuitions that were difficult to resolve into a coherent, compelling reconstruction of an incident or concern. Efforts to make soft intelligence hard thus risked creating 'forbidden knowledge': dangerous to know or share.

conclusionsThe legal and bureaucratic considerations that govern formal channels for the voicing of concerns may, perversely, inhibit staff from speaking up. Leaders responsible for quality and safety should consider complementing formal mechanisms with alternative, informal opportunities for listening to concerns.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInterprofessional RelationsPatient SafetyHealth PersonnelHospitals, TeachingHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorInterviews as TopicLeadershipMedical ErrorsQualitative ResearchSafety Managementpatient safetyqualitative researchrisk management

Identifiers

PMID29459365
PMCPMC6109252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.