Making soft intelligence hard: a multi-site qualitative study of challenges relating to voice about safety concerns

Abstract

BackgroundHealthcare organisations often fail to harvest and make use of the ‘soft intelligence’ about safety and quality concerns held by their own personnel. We aimed to examine the role of formal channels in encouraging or inhibiting employee voice about concerns.MethodsQualitative study involving personnel from three academic hospitals in two countries. Interviews were conducted with 165 participants from a wide range of occupational and professional backgrounds, including senior leaders and those from the sharp end of care. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method.ResultsLeaders reported that they valued employee voice; they identified formal organisational channels as a key route for the expression of concerns by employees. Formal channels and processes were designed to ensure fairness, account for all available evidence and achieve appropriate resolution. When processed through these formal systems, concerns were destined to become evidenced, formal and tractable to organisational intervention. But the way these systems operated meant that some concerns were never voiced. Participants were anxious about having to process their suspicions and concerns into hard evidentiary facts, and they feared being drawn into official procedures designed to allocate consequence. Anxiety about evidence and process was particularly relevant when the intelligence was especially ‘soft’—feelings or intuitions that were difficult to resolve into a coherent, compelling reconstruction of an incident or concern. Efforts to make soft intelligence hard thus risked creating ‘forbidden knowledge’: dangerous to know or share.ConclusionsThe legal and bureaucratic considerations that govern formal channels for the voicing of concerns may, perversely, inhibit staff from speaking up. Leaders responsible for quality and safety should consider complementing formal mechanisms with alternative, informal opportunities for listening to concerns.

“Change is what can actually make the tough times better”: A patient‐centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers

“…One further issue of relevance to our findings is the nature of the PRASE data, and whether it—as soft intelligence—fits within the current dominant improvement approaches within hospitals. Soft intelligence has been described as “the processes and behaviours associated with seeking and interpreting soft data—of the kind that evade easy capture, straightforward classification and simple quantification—to produce forms of knowledge that can provide the basis for intervention.” (p19) It has been argued that seeking out data which does not easily conform to measurement is a necessary part of managing patient safety, even when it is “discomfiting and disruptive.” (p26) Our findings seem to resonate with previous suggestions that patient feedback is soft data . PRASE feedback is likely to generate uncertainty rather than certainty in terms of the problems to be solved, requiring further interrogation of extant data or other data gathering.…”

“…There is increasing attention on how staff use and act on data within health services . We found an unequivocal lack of movement from data to action within our case study wards, the reasons for which are likely to be manifold and complex.…”

Organisational strategies and practices to improve care using patient experience data in acute NHS hospital trusts: an ethnographic study

“…22 Pflueger acknowledges that the new sorts of accounting systems he envisages will not create 'illusions of certainty, accountability and control', rather, they will highlight the limitations of all of these things. 22 Related to Pflueger's work, two very recent studies 27,28 start from the premise that 'formal metrics for monitoring the quality and safety of healthcare have a valuable role, but may not, by themselves, yield full insight into the range of fallibilities in organizations'. These studies refer to 'soft intelligence', defined as the:…”

Understanding how front-line staff use patient experience data for service improvement: an exploratory case study evaluation

“…As Dudwhala et al 31 argue, unstructured data that have not been actively sought or sanctioned by health-care organisations are unlikely to have the impact of other, more formal, data sources. Similarly, in their study of how staff raise safety concerns, Martin et al 32 note that organisational leaders tended to prefer such concerns to be routed through formal systems in order to provide evidence for action. However, as a result, some concerns were never voiced, because of staff anxiety about using these channels and becoming drawn into bureaucratic procedures.…”