In various industries, individuals from different professions have to work together in a team to achieve their collective goal. Having gone through different educations, team members speak different professional languages, which poses a challenge to communication, and coordination in interprofessional teams. A shared language is believed to improve collaboration. In this study, we examine if a shared language in interprofessional healthcare teams is associated with better relational coordination and if both are connected to higher quality of care as well as job satisfaction of the staff. We shed light on possible mechanisms between shared language, and quality of care and job satisfaction, respectively, investigating relational coordination and psychological safety as mediators. We surveyed 197 healthcare workers (HCWs) from different professions in three rehabilitation centers in Switzerland. Multiple regression analyses showed that shared language was positively related to perceived quality of care and job satisfaction. Moreover, we found evidence for a serial mediation of these relationships by relational coordination and psychological safety. We discuss implications for healthcare and other types of interprofessional teams.
Although research demonstrates that self‐verification striving can have positive outcomes in the hiring process, it remains unclear how this drive to present oneself authentically manifests in candidates’ behavior during job interviews. We examine whether self‐verifying behavior, including revelation of negative information about the self, is related to success in job interviews. Study 1 showed that self‐verification striving among 112 MBA students predicted their self‐verifying behavior during mock job interviews, which in turn led to success in converting interviews into actual offers 6 months later. Using a sample of 102 recent job seekers, Study 2 showed that self‐verification striving was associated with the extent to which candidates disclosed negative information about themselves during real job interviews, ultimately predicting their interview success.
While many studies have investigated the consequences of psychological safety for behavior, there is little theorizing on the mechanisms that account for these effects. Since psychological safety makes individuals feel safe to express their true self, we argue that it should act as a catalyst for alignment between individual beliefs and behavior. Drawing on the reasoned action model, we postulate that psychological safety interacts with individuals’ attitudes and perceived norms in predicting intention and behavior. We tested our model with physicians’ influenza vaccination behavior. We surveyed 208 physicians from a Swiss hospital before and after the vaccination phase. Results show that the effect of attitude, but not perceived norm, on intention to get vaccinated was moderated by perceived psychological safety in the physicians’ team: High psychological safety strengthened the effect of physicians’ attitude on their intention, which in turn predicted actual vaccination behavior. We provide first evidence that high psychological safety may render individuals more comfortable to act in accordance with their attitudes. Depending on whether attitudes are in line with organizational goals, increasing psychological safety could facilitate positive or negative consequences. This more differentiated understanding of psychological safety can fruitfully inform both future research and organizational practice.
BackgroundIsolation precautions are intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents, yet healthcare provider (HCP) adherence remains suboptimal. This may be due to ambiguity regarding the required precautions or to cognitive overload of HCPs. In response to the challenge of changing HCP behaviour, increasing attention should be paid to the role of engineering controls and facility design that incorporate human factors elements. In the current study, we aimed to develop an isolation precaution signage system that provides visual cues, serves as a cognitive aid at the point of care, and removes ambiguity regarding which precautions are necessary (e.g. masks, gowns, gloves, single rooms) when caring for isolated patients.MethodsWe employed a user-centred, participatory design approach in which HCPs were actively involved in generating an isolation precaution signage system based on human factors design principles. HCPs were purposefully sampled for each design phase to include a representative sample of potential system users. We conducted front-end analysis through interviews and observations to identify challenges related to the existing signage and to establish design requirements for new signage. This was followed by the creation of user personas, design thinking workshops, and prototyping, which then underwent iterative cycles of evaluation. Graphical symbols were developed and tested for comprehensibility.ResultsFront-end analysis revealed several barriers to use of the current signage system such as unclear target audience, low signal-to-noise ratio, and ambiguity regarding the applicable precautions. A comprehensive list of design requirements was generated. The project ultimately resulted in a collection of validated, comprehensible symbols and signs for contact, droplet, and airborne isolation, as well as the identification of several systems-level solutions for work re-organisation to improve compliance with isolation precautions.ConclusionsThe introduction of visual cues in the form of signage offers a promising opportunity to make guidelines available directly at the frontline. Anecdotal evidence based on observations and interviews with HCP have shown that the current solution is superior to previous isolation signage. User-centred participatory design was a useful approach that holds potential for further improving design in healthcare settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.