Introduction Psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Its presence improves innovation and error prevention. This evidence synthesis had 3 objectives: explore the current literature regarding psychological safety, identify methods used in its assessment and investigate for evidence of consequences of a psychologically safe environment. Methods We searched multiple trial registries through December 2018. All studies addressing psychological safety within healthcare workers were included and reviewed for methodological limitations. A thematic analysis approach explored the presence of psychological safety. Content analysis was utilised to evaluate potential consequences. Results We included 62 papers from 19 countries. The thematic analysis demonstrated high and low levels of psychological safety both at the individual level in study participants and across the studies themselves. There was heterogeneity in responses across all studies, limiting generalisable conclusions about the overall presence of psychological safety. A wide range of methods were used. Twenty-five used qualitative methodology, predominantly semi-structured interviews. Thirty quantitative or mixed method studies used surveys. Ten studies inferred that low psychological safety negatively impacted patient safety. Nine demonstrated a significant relationship between psychological safety and team outcomes. The thematic analysis allowed the development of concepts beyond the content of the original studies. This analytical process provided a wealth of information regarding facilitators and barriers to psychological safety and the development of a model demonstrating the influence of situational context. Discussion This evidence synthesis highlights that whilst there is a positive and demonstrable presence of psychological safety within healthcare workers worldwide, there is room for improvement. The variability in methods used demonstrates scope to harmonise this. We draw attention to potential consequences of both high and low psychological safety. We provide novel information about the influence of situational context on an individual’s psychological safety and offer more detail about the facilitators and barriers to psychological safety than seen in previous reviews. There is a risk of participation bias - centres involved in safety research may be more aligned to these ideals. The data in this synthesis are useful for institutions looking to improve psychological safety by providing a framework from which modifiable factors can be identified.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the presence of perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in healthcare professionals. As the timeframe for this study spanned the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were captured demonstrating the impact of the pandemic on these factors.DesignQualitative interview study.SettingAll staff working within the emergency and critical care departments of one National Health Service Trust in London, UK.ParticipantsForty-nine participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique and interviewed when the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had subsided.Main outcome measuresEvaluation of changes in perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in individuals working during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThe thematic analysis relating to a participant’s lived experiences while working during COVID-19 led to the construction of five key themes, including ‘psychological effects’ and ‘changes in team dynamics’. Several psychological effects were described, including the presence of psychological distress and insights into the aetiology of moral injury. There was marked heterogeneity in participants’ response to COVID-19, particularly with respect to changes in team dynamics and the perception of a psychologically safe environment. Descriptions of improved team cohesiveness and camaraderie contrasted with stories of new barriers, notably due to the high workload and the impact of personal protective equipment. Building on these themes, a map of key changes arising due to the pandemic was developed, highlighting potential opportunities to provide targeted support.ConclusionsWorking on the front line of a pandemic can have significant implications for healthcare workers, putting them at risk of psychological distress and moral injury, as well as affecting team dynamics. There is striking heterogeneity in the manifestation of these challenges. Team leaders can use the themes and qualitative data from this study to help identify areas for management focus and individual and team support.

No abstract

No abstract

Critical care staff are frequently required to respond to stressful scenarios. The way staff counter organisational challenge may be influenced by their underlying personality type, preferred style of cognitive processing and previous clinical experience. Our objective was to explore the personality types of a sample of critical care workers, and the potential relationship of this with cognitive processing. This was achieved through a qualitative interview study in which participants were presented with difficult but realistic scenarios pertaining to staffing. Data on individual's personality were captured using the '16 Personality Factor' assessment, a tool that produces scores for 16 different elements of an individual's personality. The existence of perfectionist and pragmatic cognitive processing styles were identified as one theme emerging from a prior analysis of these interview transcripts. We aimed to validate this, explore our ability to categorise individuals into groups based upon their cognitive processing. We identified that some individuals strongly tended to either a perfectionist or pragmatic style of cognitive processing for the majority of their decisions; however most adapted their style of processing according to the nature of the decision. Overall participants generally demonstrated average scores for all 16 personality factors tested. However, we observed that some factors tended to higher scores than others, indicating a pattern within the personalities of our sample cohort. Whilst a small sample size, our data suggests that individuals working within the same critical care environment may have clear differences in their approach to problem solving as a consequence of both their personality type and preferred style of cognitive processing. Thus there may be individuals within this environment who would benefit from increased support to minimise their risk of cognitive dissonance and stress in times of challenge.

ObjectivesThis 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.DesignQualitative interview study incorporating a short quantitative survey.SettingThree intensive care units within one National Health Service Trust in London.ParticipantsThirty 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.InterventionsSemistructured interviews explored attitudes towards psychological safety and contained a quantitative assessment measuring the climate of psychological safety present.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsOur 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

As the ambitions of surgery have continued to develop, it has resulted in medical advancements that challenge the current paradigms of hospital medicine. Patients previously deemed unsuitable for surgery are now undergoing potentially lifesaving treatments, but are nonetheless still being managed within a model of care that fails to meet their individual needs. Termed 'high risk', these patients, who are frequently elderly or with multiple comorbidities, embark on a surgical journey that is often fragmented and disjointed. Such patients contribute a startlingly high mortality and morbidity rate for non-cardiac elective surgery during the perioperative period, and as a result provide an added demand on already strained hospital resources. 'Perioperative medicine' has been proposed as a possible solution to this problem as it attempts to create a bespoke patient-centric model of care from the moment the need for surgery is identified, through to patient recovery. It is envisaged that the role of a perioperative physician would be to oversee this journey, uniting varying specialties along the way to ensure the best possible patient outcomes.

Healthcare teams are expected to deliver high quality and safe clinical care, a goal facilitated by an environment of psychological safety. We hypothesised that an individual’s personality would influence psychological safety, perceived stressors in the clinical environment and confer a suitability for different professional roles. Staff members were recruited from the Emergency or Critical Care Departments of one National Health Service Trust. Qualitative interviews explored participants’ experiences of personality, incorporating quantitative surveys to evaluate psychological safety and perceived stressors. The 16 Primary Factor Assessment provided a quantitative measure of personality. Participants demonstrated midrange scores for most personality traits, highlighting an ability to adapt to changing environments and requirements. There was a signal that different personality traits predominated between the two professional groups, and that certain traits were significantly associated with higher psychological safety and certain perceived stressors. Personality was described as having a strong influence on teamwork, the working environment and leadership ability. Our analysis highlights that personality can influence team dynamics and the suitability of individuals for certain clinical roles. Understanding the heterogeneity of personalities of team members and their likely responses to challenge may help leaders to support staff in times of challenge and improve team cohesiveness.