Journal: British Journal of Anaesthesia

Loading...

Abbreviation

Br J Anaesth

Publisher

Elsevier

Journal Volumes

ISSN

0007-0912
1471-6771

Description

Search Results

Publications1 - 8 of 8
  • Zeilhofer, Hanns U.; Neumann, Elena; Munro, Gordon (2019)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Zeilhofer, Hanns U.; Neumann, Elena; Munro, Gordon (2019)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Vauk, Stefanie; Seelandt, Julia C.; Huber, Katja; et al. (2022)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
    Background: Speaking up with concerns is critical for patient safety. We studied whether witnessing a civil (i.e. polite, respectful) response to speaking up would increase the occurrence of further speaking up by hospital staff members as compared with witnessing a pseudo-civil (i.e. vague and slightly dismissive) or rude response. Methods: In this RCT in a single, large academic teaching hospital, a single simulated basic life support scenario was designed to elicit standardised opportunities to speak up. Participants in teams of two or three were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which the degree of civility in reacting to speaking up was manipulated by an embedded simulated person. Speaking up behaviour was assessed by behaviour coding of the video recordings of the team interactions by applying 10 codes using The Observer XT 14.1. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling. Results: The sample included 125 interprofessional hospital staff members (82 [66%] women, 43 [34%] men). Participants were more likely to speak up when they felt psychologically safe (γ=0.47; standard error [SE]=0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.85; P=0.017). Participants were more likely to speak up in the rude condition than in the other conditions (γ=0.28; SE=0.12; 95% CI, 0.05–0.52; P=0.019). Across conditions, participants spoke up most frequently by structuring inquiry (n=289, 31.52%), proactive (n=240, 26.17%), and reactive (n=148, 16.14%) instruction statements, and gestures (n=139, 15.16%). Conclusion: Our study challenges current assumptions about the interplay of civility and speaking up behaviour in healthcare.
  • Baeckert, Martina; Batliner, Martin; Grass, Beate; et al. (2020)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Dubatovka, Alina; Nöthiger, Christoph B.; Spahn, Donat R.; et al. (2024)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Kolbe, Michaela; Symon, Benjamin (2024)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
    The operating theatre is a dynamic and challenging environment where effective teamwork is essential. Routine clinical debriefings, which involve brief reflections on collaboration to identify successes and areas for improvement, have proved to enhance teamwork, particularly in the operating theatre. However, barriers such as time constraints, conflicting priorities, and a lack of standardised debriefing processes hinder their regular use. Implementation of TALK©, a voluntary self-debriefing method, showed significant improvements in debriefing performance and integration of debriefing into routine practice, although long-term consistency remains a challenge.
  • Rössler, Julian; Schönrath, Felix; Seifert, Burkhardt; et al. (2020)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Lemke, Rahel; Burtscher, Michael J.; Seelandt, Julia C.; et al. (2021)
    British Journal of Anaesthesia
    Background Speaking up with concerns in the interest of patient safety has been identified as important for the quality and safety of patient care. The study objectives were to identify how anaesthesia care providers speak up, how their colleagues react to it, whether there is an association among speak up form and reaction, and how this reaction is associated with further speak up. Methods Data were collected over 3 months at a single centre in Switzerland by observing 49 anaesthesia care providers while performing induction of general anaesthesia in 53 anaesthesia teams. Speaking up and reactions to speaking up were measured by event-based behaviour coding. Results Instances of speaking up were classified as opinion (59.6%), oblique hint (37.2%), inquiry (30.7%), and observation (16.7%). Most speak up occurred as a combination of different forms. Reactions to speak up included short approval (36.5%), elaboration (35.9%), no verbal reaction (26.3%), or rejection (1.28%). Speaking up was implemented in 89.1% of cases. Inquiry was associated with an increased likelihood of recipients discussing the respective issue (odds ratio [OR]=13.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9–31.5; P<0.0001) and with a decreased likelihood of implementing the speak up during the same induction (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.08–0.88; P=0.03). Reacting with elaboration to the first speak up was associated with decreased further speak up during the same induction (relative risk [RR]=0.42; 95% CI, 0.21–0.83; P=0.018). Conclusion Our study provides insights into the form and function of speaking up in clinical environments and points to a perceived dilemma of speaking up via questions.
Publications1 - 8 of 8