Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38597879›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2024

Co-worker unprofessional behaviour and patient safety risks: an analysis of co-worker reports across eight Australian hospitals.

Ryan D McMullan, Kate Churruca, Peter Hibbert, Ling Li, Ruby Ash, Rachel Urwin, Antoinette Pavithra, Johanna I Westbrook

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ryan D McMullanFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4992-3626
Kate ChurrucaFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9923-3116
Peter HibbertFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7865-343X
Ling LiFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1642-142X
Ruby AshFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Rachel UrwinFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Antoinette PavithraFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Johanna I WestbrookFaculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1083-8192
Macquarie University · AUUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

Elizabeth Blackburn Leadership Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council 1174021National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnership Project Grant 1134459
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A key component of professional accountability programmes is online reporting tools that allow hospital staff to report co-worker unprofessional behaviour. Few studies have analysed data from these systems to further understand the nature or impact of unprofessional behaviour amongst staff. Ethos is a whole-of-hospital professional accountability programme that includes an online messaging system. Ethos has now been implemented across multiple Australian hospitals. This study examined reported unprofessional behaviour that staff indicated created a risk to patient safety. This study included 1310 Ethos submissions reporting co-worker unprofessional behaviour between 2017 and 2020 across eight Australian hospitals. Submissions that indicated the behaviour increased the risk to patient safety were identified. Descriptive summary statistics were presented for reporters and subjects of submissions about unprofessional behaviour. Logistic regression was applied to examine the association between each unprofessional behaviour (of the six most frequently reported in the Ethos submissions) and patient safety risk reported in the submissions. The descriptions in the reports were reviewed and the patient safety risks were coded using a framework aligned with the World Health Organization's International Classification for Patient Safety. Of 1310 submissions about unprofessional behaviour, 395 (30.2%) indicated that there was a risk to patient safety. Nurses made the highest number of submissions that included a patient safety risk [3.47 submissions per 100 nursing staff, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.09-3.9] compared to other professional groups. Medical professionals had the highest rate as subjects of submissions for unprofessional behaviour with a patient safety risk (5.19 submissions per 100 medical staff, 95% CI: 4.44-6.05). 'Opinions being ignored' (odds ratio: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.23-2.22; P < .001) and 'someone withholding information which affects work performance' were behaviours strongly associated with patient safety risk in the submissions (odds ratio: 2.50; 95% CI: 1.73-3.62; P < .001) compared to submissions without a patient safety risk. The two main types of risks to patient safety described were related to clinical process/procedure and clinical administration. Commonly reported events included staff not following policy or protocol; doctors refusing to review a patient; and interruptions and inadequate information during handover. Our findings indicate that unprofessional behaviour was associated with risks to patient safety. Co-worker reports about unprofessional behaviour have significant value as they can be used by organizations to better understand how unprofessional behaviour can disrupt work practices and lead to risks to patient safety.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyPhysiciansAustraliaHospitalsHumansProfessional Misconductco-worker reportshospitalsorganizational culturepatient safety risksprofessional accountabilityunprofessional behaviour

Identifiers

PMID38597879
PMCPMC11025673
OpenAlexW4394675079

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.