Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32075804›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open quality2020

What do we really assess with organisational culture tools in healthcare? An interpretive systematic umbrella review of tools in healthcare.

Romana Fattimah Malik, Martina Buljac-Samardžić, Nesibe Akdemir, Carina Hilders, Fedde Scheele

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Romana Fattimah MalikMedical Education, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands r.malik@olvg.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8061-9791
Martina Buljac-SamardžićHealth Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Nesibe AkdemirMedical Education, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Carina HildersHealth Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Fedde ScheeleMedical Education, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
OLVG · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA toxic organisational culture (OC) is a major contributing factor to serious failings in healthcare delivery. Poor OC with its consequences of unprofessional behaviour, unsafe attitudes of professionals and its impact on patient care still need to be addressed. Although various tools have been developed to determine OC and improve patient safety, it remains a challenge to decide on the suitability of tools for uncovering the underlying factors which truly impact OC, such as behavioural norms, or the unwritten rules. A better understanding of the underlying dimensions that these tools do and do not unravel is required.

objectivesThe aim of this study is to provide an overview of existing tools to assess OC and the tangible and intangible OC dimensions these tools address.

methodsAn interpretive umbrella review was conducted. Literature reviews were considered for inclusion if they described multiple tools and their dimensional characteristics in the context of OC, organisational climate, patient safety culture or climate. OC tools and the underlying dimensions were extracted from the reviews. A qualitative data analysis software program (MAX.QDA 2007) was used for coding the dimensions, which resulted in tangible and intangible themes.

resultsFifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria. A total of 127 tools were identified, which were mainly quantitative questionnaires covering tangible key dimensions. Qualitative analyses distinguished nine intangible themes (commitment, trust, psychological safety, power, support, communication openness, blame and shame, morals and valuing ethics, and cohesion) and seven tangible themes (leadership, communication system, teamwork, training and development, organisational structures and processes, employee and job attributes, and patient orientation).

conclusionThis umbrella review identifies the essential tangible and intangible themes of OC tools. OC tools in healthcare do not seem to be designed to determine deeper underlying dimensions of culture. We suggest approaching complex underlying OC problems by focusing on the intangible dimensions, rather than putting the tangible dimensions up front.

Indexed as

Organizational CultureAcademic Medical CentersDelivery of Health CareHumansNetherlandsQualitative ResearchQuality Assurance, Health CareSurveys and Questionnairescommunicationhealth policyleadershiporganisational culturepatient safety

Identifiers

PMID32075804
PMCPMC7047493
OpenAlexW3006780196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.