Enabling clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement
Sarah Fischer A B , Karen Patterson A and Carrie Marr AA Clinical Excellence Commission, Level 3, 1 Reserve Road, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia. Email: karen.patterson@health.nsw.gov.au; carrie.marr@health.nsw.gov.au
B Corresponding author: Email: sarah.fischer@health.nsw.gov.au
Australian Health Review 45(4) 455-462 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH20151
Submitted: 25 June 2020 Accepted: 9 November 2020 Published: 1 April 2021
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2021 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to determine how individual, group and leadership factors influence clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement work.
Methods The study was conducted through an online questionnaire. Participants were alumni of Australian healthcare safety and quality improvement capability development programs. Relationships between five factors influencing clinicians’ perception of value for time and effort in safety and quality improvement work were explored. The five factors were psychological empowerment; task cohesion; social cohesion; transformational leadership behaviour of project leads and sponsors; and value for time and effort for self and patients. Correlation and regression analyses were used to explore the aspects of the hypothesised model. Moderation and mediation analysis was then used to explore the relationships further. Structural equation modelling was used to determine the path model.
Results All factors showed strong positive correlations, with psychological empowerment and transformational leadership having the strongest relationships with perceived value for effort for self and patient. The factorial structure of measures was examined, and all indicators loaded significantly on their corresponding latent constructs and the model showed a good fit to the data.
Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the most crucial factor to clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement at the point of care is the leader’s behaviour and how that influences team dynamics and individual motivation and empowerment.
What is known about the topic? Healthcare organisations remain challenged regarding clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement. Although much is known about clinicians’ perceptions of safety and quality, there is more to understand about what practically motivates clinicians to engage. Tapping into individual, group and leadership factors’ influences on clinician engagement offers a deeper perspective.
What does this paper add? This study explored the individual, group and leadership factors that drive clinician engagement. The factors include the clinician’s individual motivation and empowerment to participate, the group dynamics that surround the clinician and the leadership behaviours of the team’s leader. The research design allowed for greater understanding about how and to what extent these factors drive clinician engagement. The study’s findings can be applied in practice in capability development activities or leadership for safety and quality improvement.
What are the implications for practitioners? Rather than taking a perspective that the clinician needs to engage, this study suggests a strong onus on leadership behaviours to engage those clinicians. Focusing on the self as leader and a leader’s own behaviours, as well as how those behaviours are fostering positive team dynamics and motivating and empowering individual team members, will have a great benefit on clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement. Higher clinical engagement in safety and quality improvement should translate into better value care.
Keywords: patient safety, quality improvement, motivation, empowerment, leadership, teamwork.
References
[1] Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.[2] Bolsin S, Carter J, Kitson A, Walter D, Roberts S. Clinical engagement: a new concept or common sense all round? Aust Health Rev 2019; 43 392–5.
| Clinical engagement: a new concept or common sense all round?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30021677PubMed |
[3] Davies H, Powell A, Rushmer R. Healthcare professionals’ views on clinician engagement in quality improvement. A literature review. London: The Health Foundation; 2007.
[4] Phelps G, Barach P. Why has the safety and quality movement been slow to improve care? Int J Clin Pract 2014; 68 932–5.
| Why has the safety and quality movement been slow to improve care?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25074334PubMed |
[5] Allen D, Braithwaite J, Sandall J, Waring J. Towards a sociology of healthcare safety and quality. Sociol Health Illn 2016; 38 181–97.
| Towards a sociology of healthcare safety and quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26679563PubMed |
[6] Parand A, Burnett S, Benn J, Iskander S, Pinto A, Vincent C. Medical engagement in organisation-wide safety and quality-improvement programmes: experience in the UK Safer Patients Initiative. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19 e44
| 20538629PubMed |
[7] Clarke AL, Shearer W, McMillan AJ, Ireland PD. Investigating apparent variation in quality of care: the critical role of clinician engagement. Med J Aust 2010; 193 S111–3.
| Investigating apparent variation in quality of care: the critical role of clinician engagement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20955138PubMed |
[8] Jorm C, Hudson R, Wallace E. Turning attention to clinician engagement in Victoria. Aust Health Rev 2019; 43 123–5.
| Turning attention to clinician engagement in Victoria.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29141769PubMed |
[9] Eldor L, Vigoda-Gadot E. The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the employee–organization relationship. Int J Hum Resour Man 2017; 28 526–52.
| The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the employee–organization relationship.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Corrigan J. Crossing the quality chasm. Building a better delivery system. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
[11] Moen RD, Nolan TW, Provost LP. Quality improvement through planned experimentation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1999.
[12] Langley GJ, Moen RD, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.
[13] Deming WE. The new economics for industry, government, education. 3rd edn. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2018.
[14] Hilton K, Anderson A. IHI psychology of change framework to advance and sustain improvement. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2018.
[15] Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 2000; 55 68–78.
| Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11392867PubMed |
[16] Conchie SM. Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: A moderated-mediated model of workplace safety. J Occup Health Psychol 2013; 18 198–210.
| Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: A moderated-mediated model of workplace safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23506550PubMed |
[17] Gagné M, Koestner R, Zuckerman M. Facilitating Acceptance of Organizational Change: The Importance of Self‐Determination. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000; 30 1843–52.
| Facilitating Acceptance of Organizational Change: The Importance of Self‐Determination.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Lamm E, Gordon JR. Empowerment, predisposition to resist change, and support for organizational change. J Leadersh Organ Stud 2010; 17 426–37.
| Empowerment, predisposition to resist change, and support for organizational change.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Beal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL. Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88 989–1004.
| Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14640811PubMed |
[20] Salanova M, Lorente L, Chambel MJ, Martínez IM. Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra‐role performance: the mediating role of self‐efficacy and work engagement. J Adv Nurs 2011; 67 2256–66.
| Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra‐role performance: the mediating role of self‐efficacy and work engagement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21535088PubMed |
[21] Bateman TS, Organ DW. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Acad Manage J 1983; 26 587–95.
| Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[22] Organ DW, Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.
[23] Clinical Excellence Commission. Mental health patient safety program: explore and understand diagnostic findings. Sydney: NSW Health; 2019.
[24] Albrecht SL. The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: Test of a model. Int J Manpow 2012; 33 840–53.
| The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: Test of a model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Hassan S. The importance of role clarification in workgroups: Effects on perceived role clarity, work satisfaction, and turnover rates. Public Adm Rev 2013; 73 716–25.
| The importance of role clarification in workgroups: Effects on perceived role clarity, work satisfaction, and turnover rates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[26] Lucas C, Kline T. Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group dynamics on organizational change and learning. Learn Organ 2008; 15 277–87.
| Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group dynamics on organizational change and learning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[27] Hu J, Liden RC. Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. J Appl Psychol 2011; 96 851–62.
| Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21319877PubMed |
[28] Antonakis J, Avolio BJ, Sivasubramaniam N. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadersh Q 2003; 14 261–95.
| Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[29] Huynh HP, Sweeny K, Miller T. Transformational leadership in primary care: Clinicians’ patterned approaches to care predict patient satisfaction and health expectations. J Health Psychol 2018; 23 743–53.
| Transformational leadership in primary care: Clinicians’ patterned approaches to care predict patient satisfaction and health expectations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27872386PubMed |
[30] Guevara RS, Montoya J, Carmody-Bubb M, Wheeler C. Physician leadership style predicts advanced practice provider job satisfaction. Leadersh Health Serv 2019; 33 56–72.
| Physician leadership style predicts advanced practice provider job satisfaction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[31] Wylie DA, Gallagher HL. Transformational leadership behaviors in allied health professions. J Allied Health 2009; 38 65–73.
| 19623787PubMed |
[32] Allen GP, Moore WM, Moser LR, Neill KK, Sambamoorthi U, Bell HS. The Role of Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership in Academic Pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ 2016; 80 113
| The Role of Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership in Academic Pharmacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27756921PubMed |
[33] Bass BM. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 1999; 8 9–32.
| Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[34] Sweeney JC, Soutar GN. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J Retailing 2001; 77 203–20.
| Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[35] Hoffmann TC, Légaré F, Simmons MB, McNamara K, McCaffery K, Trevena LJ, Hudson B, Glasziou PP, Del Mar CB. Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Med J Aust 2014; 201 35–9.
| Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24999896PubMed |
[36] Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications; 2017.
[37] Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 2008; 6 53–60.
[38] He Y, Wang Y, Payne SC. How is safety climate formed? A meta-analysis of the antecedents of safety climate. Organ Psychol Rev 2019; 9 124–56.
| How is safety climate formed? A meta-analysis of the antecedents of safety climate.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[39] Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 1999; 44 350–83.
| Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[40] Kahn WA. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad Manage J 1990; 33 692–724.
| Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[41] Meltzer D, Chung J, Khalili P, Marlow E, Arora V, Schumock G, Burt R. Exploring the use of social network methods in designing healthcare safety and quality improvement teams. Soc Sci Med 2010; 71 1119–30.
| Exploring the use of social network methods in designing healthcare safety and quality improvement teams.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20674116PubMed |
[42] Eys MA, Carron AV. Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small Group Res 2001; 32 356–73.
| Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[43] Fruhen LS, Keith N. Team cohesion and error culture in risky work environments. Saf Sci 2014; 65 20–7.
| Team cohesion and error culture in risky work environments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[44] Guchait P, Paşamehmetoğlu A, Madera J. Error management culture: impact on cohesion, stress, and turnover intentions. Serv Ind J 2016; 36 124–41.
| Error management culture: impact on cohesion, stress, and turnover intentions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[45] Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM, Weick KE. Doing no harm: enabling, enacting, and elaborating a culture of safety in health care. Acad Manage Perspect 2010; 24 60–77.
| Doing no harm: enabling, enacting, and elaborating a culture of safety in health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[46] Hoffmann B, Rohe J. Patient safety and error management: what causes adverse events and how can they be prevented? Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107 92–9.
| 20204120PubMed |
[47] Callow N, Smith MJ, Hardy L, Arthur CA, Hardy J. Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. J Appl Sport Psychol 2009; 21 395–412.
| Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[48] Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Atwater LE, Spangler WD. Transformational leadership and team performance. J Organ Change Manage 2004; 17 177–93.
| Transformational leadership and team performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[49] Den Hartog DN, House RJ, Hanges PJ, Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, Dorfman PW, Adetoun BS, Abdalla IA, Aditya RN, et al Culture Specific and Cross-culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of Charismatic/transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed? Leadersh Q 1999; 10 219–56.
| Culture Specific and Cross-culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of Charismatic/transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[50] Mittal R, Dorfman PW. Servant leadership across cultures. J World Bus 2012; 47 555–70.
| Servant leadership across cultures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[51] Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78 98–104.
| What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[52] Spreitzer GM. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad Manage J 1995; 38 1442–1465.
| Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[53] Bollen KA, Hoyle RH. Perceived cohesion: a conceptual and empirical examination. Soc Forces 1990; 69 479–504.
| Perceived cohesion: a conceptual and empirical examination.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
