Search results

Workplace silence impedes productivity, job satisfaction and retention, key issues for the hospital workforce worldwide. It can have a negative effect on patient outcomes and safety and human resources in healthcare organisations. This study aims to examine factors that influence workplace silence among hospital doctors in Ireland.

A national, cross-sectional, online survey of hospital doctors in Ireland was conducted in October–November 2019; 1,070 hospital doctors responded. This paper focuses on responses to the question “If you had concerns about your working conditions, would you raise them?”. In total, 227 hospital doctor respondents (25%) stated that they would not raise concerns about their working conditions. Qualitative thematic analysis was carried out on free-text responses to explore why these doctors choose to opt for silence regarding their working conditions.

Reputational risk, lack of energy and time, a perceived inability to effect change and cultural norms all discourage doctors from raising concerns about working conditions. Apathy arose as change to working conditions was perceived as highly unlikely. In turn, this had scope to lead to neglect and exit. Voice was seen as risky for some respondents, who feared that complaining could damage their career prospects and workplace relationships.

This study highlights the systemic, cultural and practical issues that pressure hospital doctors in Ireland to opt for silence around working conditions. It adds to the literature on workplace silence and voice within the medical profession and provides a framework for comparative analysis of doctors' silence and voice in other settings.

The purpose of this paper is to explore different health care professionals’ discourse about privacy – its definition and importance in health care, and its role in their day-to-day work. Professionals’ discourse about privacy reveals how new technologies and laws challenge existing practices of information control within and between professional groups in health care, with implications not only for patient privacy, but also for the role of information control in professions more generally.

The authors conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with n=83 doctors, nurses, and health information professionals in two academic medical centers and one veteran’s administration hospital/clinic in the Northeastern USA. Interview responses were qualitatively coded for themes and patterns across groups were identified.

The health care providers and the authors studied actively sought to uphold the protection (and control) of patient information through professional ethics and practices, as well as through the use of technologies and compliance with legal regulations. They used discourses of professionalism, as well as of law and technology, to sometimes accept and sometimes resist changes to practice required in the changing technological and legal context of health care. The authors found differences across professional groups; for some, protection of patient information is part of core professional ethics, while for others it is simply part of their occupational work, aligned with organizational interests.

This qualitative study of physicians, nurses, and health information professionals revealed some differences in views and practices for protecting patient information in the changing technological and legal context of health care that suggest some professional groups (doctors) may be more likely to resist such changes and others (health information professionals) will actively adopt them.

New technologies and regulations are changing how information is used in health care delivery, challenging professional practices for the control of patient information that may change the value or meaning of medical records for different professional groups.

Qualitative findings suggest that professional groups in health care vary in the extent of information control they have, as well in how they view such control. Some groups may be more likely to (be able to) resist changes in the professional control of information that stem from new technologies or regulatory policies. Some professionals recognize that new IT systems and regulations challenge existing social control of information in health care, with the potential to undermine (or possibly bolster) professional self-control for some but not necessarily all occupational groups.

In this viewpoint article, the authors recognize the increased focus in health systems on co-design for innovation and change. This article explores the role of leaders and mangers in developing and enhancing a culture of trust in their organizations to enable co-design, with the potential to drive innovation and change in healthcare.

Using social science analyses, the authors argue that current co-design literature has limited focus on interactions between senior leaders and managers, and healthcare staff and service users in supporting co-designed innovation and change. The authors draw on social and health science studies of trust to highlight how the value-based co-design process needs to be supported and enhanced. We outline what co-design innovation and change involve in a health system, conceptualize trust and reflect on its importance within the health system, and finally note the role of senior leaders and managers in supporting trust and responsiveness for co-designed innovation and change.

Healthcare needs leaders and managers to embrace co-design that drives innovation now and in the future through people – leading to better healthcare for society at large. As authors we argue that it is now the time to shift our focus on the role of senior managers and leaders to embed co-design into health and social care structures, through creating and nurturing a culture of trust.

Building public trust in the health system and interpersonal trust within the health system is an ongoing process that relies upon personal behavior of managers and senior leaders, organizational practices within the system, as well as political processes that underpin these practices. By implementing managerial, leadership and individual practices on all levels, senior managers and leaders provide a mechanism to increase both trust and responsiveness for co-design that supports innovation and change in the health system.

The present study contributes to our understanding of how to curb burnout among hospital staff over time. The authors extend existing research by examining the mediating role of mission valence in the link between transformational leadership and burnout.

Self-administered questionnaire data from employees in a Canadian general hospital (N = 185) were analyzed using a time-lagged research design to examine whether transformational leaders can increase employees' attraction to the organization's mission (i.e. mission valence) and in turn alleviate long-term burnout.

Structural equation modeling analysis demonstrated that transformational leadership (time 1) was negatively related to the burnout components of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (time 2). Further, the results showed that mission valence mediated these relationships.

The study findings are important for managers and professionals as they identify transformational leadership as a potent strategy to alleviate employee burnout and clarify the process through which this is achieved, namely, by increasing mission valence.

To date, surprisingly little research has explored how transformational leadership influences followers' burnout. To address this issue, the present study examined the role of transformational leadership on staff burnout through the mechanism of increasing mission valence. Understanding how to mitigate burnout is particularly critical in health care organizations given that burnout not only negatively impacts employee wellbeing but also the wellbeing and quality of care provided to patients.

Implementing change in healthcare is difficult to accomplish due to the unpredictability associated with challenging the status quo. Adapting the intervention/practice/program being implemented to better fit the complex context is an important aspect of implementation success. Despite the acknowledged influence of context, the concept continues to receive insufficient attention at the team-level within implementation research. Using two heterogeneous multidisciplinary healthcare teams as implementation case studies, this study evaluates the interplay between context and implementation and highlights the ways in which context influences the introduction of a collective leadership intervention in routine practice.

The multiple case study design adopted, employed a triangulation of qualitative research methods which involved observation (Case A = 16 h, Case B = 15 h) and interview data (Case A = 13 participants, Case B = 12 participants). Using an inductive approach, an in-depth thematic analysis of the data outlined the relationship between team-level contextual factors and implementation success.

Themes are presented under the headings: (1) adapting to the everyday realities, a key determinant for implementation success and (2) implementation stimulating change in context. The findings demonstrate a dynamic relationship between context and implementation. The challenges of engaging busy healthcare professionals emphasised that mapping the contextual complexity of a site and adapting implementation accordingly is essential to enhance the likelihood of successful implementation. However, implementation also altered the surrounding context, stimulating changes within both teams.

By exposing the reciprocal relationship between team-level contextual factors and implementation, this research supports the improved design of implementation strategies through better understanding the interplay and mutual evolution of evidence-based healthcare interventions within different contexts.