Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33761958›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Exploring the barriers and facilitators of psychological safety in primary care teams: a qualitative study.

Ridhaa Remtulla, Arwa Hagana, Nour Houbby, Kajal Ruparell, Nivaran Aojula, Anannya Menon, Santhosh G Thavarajasingam, Edgar Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Teamwork and relational infrastructure: a qualitative study of modern UK general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ridhaa Remtulla *College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. RXR529@student.bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4037-8959
Arwa Hagana *Imperial College London, School of Medicine, London, UK.
Nour Houbby *Imperial College London, School of Medicine, London, UK.
Kajal Ruparell *Imperial College London, School of Medicine, London, UK.
Nivaran AojulaImperial College London, School of Medicine, London, UK.
Anannya MenonImperial College London, School of Medicine, London, UK.
Santhosh G ThavarajasingamImperial College London, School of Medicine, London, UK.
Edgar MeyerLeeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychological safety is the concept by which individuals feel comfortable expressing themselves in a work environment, without fear of embarrassment or criticism from others. Psychological safety in healthcare is associated with improved patient safety outcomes, enhanced physician engagement and fostering a creative learning environment. Therefore, it is important to establish the key levers which can act as facilitators or barriers to establishing psychological safety. Existing literature on psychological safety in healthcare teams has focused on secondary care, primarily from an individual profession perspective. In light of the increased focus on multidisciplinary work in primary care and the need for team-based studies, given that psychological safety is a team-based construct, this study sought to investigate the facilitators and barriers to psychological safety in primary care multidisciplinary teams.

methodsA mono-method qualitative research design was chosen for this study. Healthcare professionals from four primary care teams (n = 20) were recruited using snowball sampling. Data collection was through semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was used to generate findings.

resultsThree meta themes surfaced: shared beliefs, facilitators and barriers to psychological safety. The shared beliefs offered insights into the teams' background functioning, providing important context to the facilitators and barriers of psychological safety specific to each team. Four barriers to psychological safety were identified: hierarchy, perceived lack of knowledge, personality and authoritarian leadership. Eight facilitators surfaced: leader and leader inclusiveness, open culture, vocal personality, support in silos, boundary spanner, chairing meetings, strong interpersonal relationships and small groups.

conclusionThis study emphasises that factors influencing psychological safety can be individualistic, team-based or organisational. Although previous literature has largely focused on the role of leaders in promoting psychological safety, safe environments can be created by all team members. Members can facilitate psychological safety in instances where positive leadership behaviours are lacking - for example, strengthening interpersonal relationships, finding support in silos or rotating the chairperson in team meetings. It is anticipated that these findings will encourage practices to reflect on their team dynamics and adopt strategies to ensure every member's voice is heard.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPatient Care TeamHumansLeadershipPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchCommunityGeneral practicePrimary carePsychological safetyTeamwork

Identifiers

PMID33761958
PMCPMC7988250
OpenAlexW3139068742

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.