Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37963673›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2023

Hospital staff reports of coworker positive and unprofessional behaviours across eight hospitals: who reports what about whom?

Rachel Urwin, Antoinette Pavithra, Ryan D McMullan, Kate Churruca, Erwin Loh, Carolyn Moore, Ling Li, Johanna I Westbrook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Co-worker unprofessional behaviour and patient safety risks: an analysis of co-worker reports across eight Australian hospitals.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024
    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.

Rachel UrwinAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia rachel.urwin@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7026-8043
Antoinette PavithraAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ryan D McMullanAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4992-3626
Kate ChurrucaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Erwin LohSt Vincent's Health Australia Ltd Fitzroy, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
Carolyn MooreSt Vincent's Health Australia Ltd Fitzroy, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
Ling LiAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Johanna I WestbrookAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorkplace behaviours of healthcare staff impact patient safety, staff well-being and organisational outcomes. A whole-of-hospital culture change programme, Ethos, was implemented by St. Vincent's Health Australia across eight hospitals. Ethos includes a secure online submission system that allows staff across all professional groups to report positive (Feedback for Recognition) and negative (Feedback for Reflection) coworker behaviours. We analysed these submissions to determine patterns and rates of submissions and identify the coworker behaviours reported.

methodAll Ethos submissions between 2017 and 2020 were deidentified and analysed. Submissions include structured data elements (eg, professional role of the reporter and subjects, event and report dates) and a narrative account of the event and coworker behaviours. Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess use and reporting patterns. Coding of the content of submissions was performed to classify types of reported coworker behaviours.

resultsThere were a total of 2504 Ethos submissions, including 1194 (47.7%) Recognition and 1310 (52.3%) Reflection submissions. Use of the submission tool was highest among nurses (20.14 submissions/100 nursing staff) and lowest among non-clinical services staff (5.07/100 non-clinical services staff). Nurses were most frequently the subject of Recognition submissions (7.56/100 nurses) while management and administrative staff were the least (4.25/100 staff). Frequently reported positive coworker behaviours were non-technical skills (79.3%, N=947); values-driven behaviours (72.5%, N=866); and actions that enhanced patient care (51.3%, N=612). Medical staff were the most frequent subjects of Reflection submissions (12.59/100 medical staff), and non-clinical services staff the least (4.53/100 staff). Overall, the most frequently reported unprofessional behaviours were being rude (53.8%, N=705); humiliating or ridiculing others (26%, N=346); and ignoring others' opinions (24.6%, N=322).

conclusionHospital staff across all professional groups used the Ethos messaging system to report both positive and negative coworker behaviours. High rates of Recognition submissions demonstrate a strong desire of staff to reward and encourage positive workplace behaviours, highlighting the importance of culture change programmes which emphasise these behaviours. The unprofessional behaviours identified in submissions are consistent with behaviours previously reported in surveys of hospital staff, suggesting that submissions are a reliable indicator of staff experiences.

Indexed as

HospitalsPersonnel, HospitalDelivery of Health CareHumansPatient SafetyProfessional MisconductCommunicationHealthcare quality improvementHealth services researchNursesPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID37963673
PMCPMC10649603

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.