ArticleBMJ open2019
Understanding the healthcare workplace learning culture through safety and dignity narratives: a UK qualitative study of multiple stakeholders' perspectives.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing effective clinical education spaces: A scoping review.Medical education · 2025Article
- Beyond mere respect: new perspectives on dignity for healthcare workplace learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A Safety Huddle Intervention in In-Patient Surgical Units: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of nursing management · 2023Article
- Scoping review to identify strategies and interventions improving interprofessional collaboration and integration in primary care.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhile studies at the undergraduate level have begun to explore healthcare students' safety and dignity dilemmas, none have explored such dilemmas with multiple stakeholders at the postgraduate level. The current study therefore explores the patient and staff safety and dignity narratives of multiple stakeholders to better understand the healthcare workplace learning culture.
designA qualitative interview study using narrative interviewing.
settingTwo sites in the UK ranked near the top and bottom for raising concerns according to the 2013 General Medical Council National Training Survey.
participantsUsing maximum variation sampling, 39 participants were recruited representing four different groups (10 public representatives, 10 medical trainees, 8 medical trainers and 11 nurses and allied health professionals) across the two sites.
methodsWe conducted 1 group and 35 individual semistructured interviews. Data collection was completed in 2015. Framework analysis was conducted to identify themes. Theme similarities and differences across the two sites and four groups were established.
resultsWe identified five themes in relation to our three research questions (RQs): (1) understandings of safety and dignity (RQ1); (2) experiences of safety and dignity dilemmas (RQ2); (3) resistance and/or complicity regarding dilemmas encountered (RQ2); (4) factors facilitating safety and/or dignity (RQ3); and (5) factors inhibiting safety and/or dignity (RQ3). The themes were remarkably similar across the two sites and four stakeholder groups.
conclusionsWhile some of our findings are similar to previous research with undergraduate healthcare students, our findings also differ, for example, illustrating higher levels of reported resistance in the postgraduate context. We provide educational implications to uphold safety and dignity at the level of the individual (eg, stakeholder education), interaction (eg, stakeholder communication and teamwork) and organisation (eg, institutional policy).
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.