A systematic review exploring the content and outcomes of interventions to improve psychological safety, speaking up and voice behaviour

135Citations
Citations of this article
471Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Having psychologically safe teams can improve learning, creativity and performance within organisations. Within a healthcare context, psychological safety supports patient safety by enabling engagement in quality improvement and encouraging staff to speak up about errors. Despite the low levels of psychological safety in healthcare teams and the important role it plays in supporting patient safety, there is a dearth of research on interventions that can be used to improve psychological safety or its related constructs. This review synthesises the content, theoretical underpinnings and outcomes of interventions which have targeted psychological safety, speaking up, and voice behaviour within a healthcare setting. It aims to identify successful interventions and inform the development of more effective interventions. Methods: A key word search strategy was developed and used to search electronic databases (PsycINFO, ABI/Inform, Academic search complete and PubMed) and grey literature databases (OpenGrey, OCLC WorldCat, Espace). Covidence, an online specialised systematic review website, was used to screen records. Data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis were conducted on identified papers. Results: Fourteen interventions were reviewed. These interventions fell into five categories. Educational interventions used simulation, video presentations, case studies and workshops while interventions which did not include an educational component used holistic facilitation, forum play and action research meetings. Mixed results were found for the efficacy or effectiveness of these interventions. While some interventions showed improvement in outcomes related to psychological safety, speaking up and voice, this was not consistently demonstrated across interventions. Included interventions' ability to demonstrate improvements in these outcomes were limited by a lack of objective outcome measures and the ability of educational interventions alone to change deeply rooted speaking up behaviours. Conclusion: To improve our understanding of the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions targeting psychological safety, speaking up and voice behaviour, longitudinal and multifaceted interventions are needed. In order to understand whether these interventions are successful, more objective measures should be developed. It is recommended that future research involves end users in the design phase of interventions, target both group and organisational levels, ensure visible leader support and work across and within interdisciplinary teams. Prospero registration number: CRD42018100659.

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

53454Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series

18124Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

12278Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A systematic review of factors that enable psychological safety in healthcare teams

133Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature

103Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The presence and potential impact of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: an evidence synthesis

72Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

O’Donovan, R., & McAuliffe, E. (2020, February 10). A systematic review exploring the content and outcomes of interventions to improve psychological safety, speaking up and voice behaviour. BMC Health Services Research. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4931-2

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2503570105140

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 119

65%

Researcher 37

20%

Lecturer / Post doc 21

11%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 68

40%

Medicine and Dentistry 41

24%

Nursing and Health Professions 34

20%

Social Sciences 26

15%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0