It depends who you ask: Divergences in staff and external stakeholder narratives about the causes of a healthcare failure

Author:

Hald E. Julie1ORCID,Gillespie Alex12,Reader Tom W.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) London United Kingdom

2. Oslo New University College Oslo Norway

Abstract

AbstractInvestigations of institutional failure in healthcare typically use staff narratives to identify the cultural factors contributing to the incident. But, to what extent can staff, who are embedded in the culture and who were part of the failing, reflect on and report on the culture? We investigate this by comparing 40 witness statements from staff and 53 witness statements from patients and relatives collected by a public inquiry into a major UK healthcare failure (Clostridium difficile outbreak). Through quantitative text analysis, we found that, while staff and external stakeholders both recognised problems in care, they diverged on the factors considered paramount. Staff emphasised underlying factors such as under‐resourcing and training (causal culture), while patients and relatives emphasised corrective behaviours such as communication for identifying and taking precautions against the spread of C. difficile (corrective culture). The results indicate that patients and relatives may be able to report on cultural factors that staff do not report or are unaware of, thus allowing a more complete analysis. Even in light of an institutional failure, staff may have incomplete accounts of the contributing cultural factors, with implications for learning and postincident improvement.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Management Information Systems

Reference71 articles.

1. What patients want: A content analysis of key qualities that influence patient satisfaction;Anderson R.;The Journal of Medical Practice Management,2007

2. Patients' and relatives' experiences and perspectives of 'Good' and 'Not so Good' quality care

3. quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data

4. Authoritative Sensemaking in a Public Inquiry Report

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3