Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff

Objectives This study aimed to quantify the presence of psychological safety (defined as an environment ‘safe for interpersonal risk taking’) in critical care staff, exploring the ways in which this manifested.Design Qualitative interview study incorporating a short quantitative survey.Setting Three...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Stephen Brett, Eleanor Murray, Clare Leon-Villapalos, Kate Grailey
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2021-08-01
Series:BMJ Open
Online Access:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/8/e046699.full
id doaj-d9891478855c4ba0bcf50a3cb7479a70
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d9891478855c4ba0bcf50a3cb7479a702021-08-10T11:00:53ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552021-08-0111810.1136/bmjopen-2020-046699Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staffStephen Brett0Eleanor Murray1Clare Leon-Villapalos2Kate Grailey3professor of critical careInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of GlasgowDepartment of Critical Care, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UKDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UKObjectives This study aimed to quantify the presence of psychological safety (defined as an environment ‘safe for interpersonal risk taking’) in critical care staff, exploring the ways in which this manifested.Design Qualitative interview study incorporating a short quantitative survey.Setting Three intensive care units within one National Health Service Trust in London.Participants Thirty participants were recruited from all levels of seniority and roles within the multidisciplinary team. A purposive sampling technique was used, with recruitment ceasing at the point of thematic saturation.Interventions Semistructured interviews explored attitudes towards psychological safety and contained a quantitative assessment measuring the climate of psychological safety present.Results Twenty-eight participants agreed that it was easy to ask for help, with 20 agreeing it is safe to take a risk on the team, demonstrating a strong perception of psychological safety in this group.Our thematic analysis highlighted areas where the context influenced an individual’s psychological safety including personality, culture and leadership. Possible negative consequences of psychological safety included distraction and fatigue for the team leader. We demonstrated that speaking up can be influenced by motivations other than patient safety, such as undermining or self-promotion.Conclusions Our data demonstrate reassuring levels of psychological safety within the participants studied. This allowed us to explore in depth the participant experience of working within a psychologically safe environment. We add to the current literature by uniquely demonstrating there can be negative consequences to a psychologically safe environment in the healthcare setting. We expand on the influence of context on psychological safety by developing a model, allowing leaders to identify which elements of context can be modified in order to promote speaking up. Team leaders can use these data to help foster a culture of openness, innovation and error prevention while minimising the risk of negative implicationshttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/8/e046699.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Stephen Brett
Eleanor Murray
Clare Leon-Villapalos
Kate Grailey
spellingShingle Stephen Brett
Eleanor Murray
Clare Leon-Villapalos
Kate Grailey
Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff
BMJ Open
author_facet Stephen Brett
Eleanor Murray
Clare Leon-Villapalos
Kate Grailey
author_sort Stephen Brett
title Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff
title_short Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff
title_full Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff
title_fullStr Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff
title_sort exploring the factors that promote or diminish a psychologically safe environment: a qualitative interview study with critical care staff
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Open
issn 2044-6055
publishDate 2021-08-01
description Objectives This study aimed to quantify the presence of psychological safety (defined as an environment ‘safe for interpersonal risk taking’) in critical care staff, exploring the ways in which this manifested.Design Qualitative interview study incorporating a short quantitative survey.Setting Three intensive care units within one National Health Service Trust in London.Participants Thirty participants were recruited from all levels of seniority and roles within the multidisciplinary team. A purposive sampling technique was used, with recruitment ceasing at the point of thematic saturation.Interventions Semistructured interviews explored attitudes towards psychological safety and contained a quantitative assessment measuring the climate of psychological safety present.Results Twenty-eight participants agreed that it was easy to ask for help, with 20 agreeing it is safe to take a risk on the team, demonstrating a strong perception of psychological safety in this group.Our thematic analysis highlighted areas where the context influenced an individual’s psychological safety including personality, culture and leadership. Possible negative consequences of psychological safety included distraction and fatigue for the team leader. We demonstrated that speaking up can be influenced by motivations other than patient safety, such as undermining or self-promotion.Conclusions Our data demonstrate reassuring levels of psychological safety within the participants studied. This allowed us to explore in depth the participant experience of working within a psychologically safe environment. We add to the current literature by uniquely demonstrating there can be negative consequences to a psychologically safe environment in the healthcare setting. We expand on the influence of context on psychological safety by developing a model, allowing leaders to identify which elements of context can be modified in order to promote speaking up. Team leaders can use these data to help foster a culture of openness, innovation and error prevention while minimising the risk of negative implications
url https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/8/e046699.full
work_keys_str_mv AT stephenbrett exploringthefactorsthatpromoteordiminishapsychologicallysafeenvironmentaqualitativeinterviewstudywithcriticalcarestaff
AT eleanormurray exploringthefactorsthatpromoteordiminishapsychologicallysafeenvironmentaqualitativeinterviewstudywithcriticalcarestaff
AT clareleonvillapalos exploringthefactorsthatpromoteordiminishapsychologicallysafeenvironmentaqualitativeinterviewstudywithcriticalcarestaff
AT kategrailey exploringthefactorsthatpromoteordiminishapsychologicallysafeenvironmentaqualitativeinterviewstudywithcriticalcarestaff
_version_ 1721212306200723456