Huddles for unprofessional behaviours in the healthcare setting that may require immediate investigation, inquiry or intervention.

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Cynthia A Baldwin, Thomas F Catron, Gerald B Hickson, Scott Aberson, Rebecca M Anderson, Sandy Bledsoe, Michael Brodman, Jeremy Cauwels, Roger Dmochowski, Thomas Hemmen, Brian Hoenerman, Rochelle Johnson, Sonam Kapoor, Daniel Lee, Dustin Lillie, Kristen Mekeel, Steven Meranze, Diane Moate, William Perry, Shira L Robbins, Thomas J Savides, Brijen J Shah, Kimberly Thillman, Craig Uthe, Christian Tomaszewski, Britney Wade, Lynn Webb, William O Cooper
{"title":"Huddles for unprofessional behaviours in the healthcare setting that may require immediate investigation, inquiry or intervention.","authors":"Cynthia A Baldwin, Thomas F Catron, Gerald B Hickson, Scott Aberson, Rebecca M Anderson, Sandy Bledsoe, Michael Brodman, Jeremy Cauwels, Roger Dmochowski, Thomas Hemmen, Brian Hoenerman, Rochelle Johnson, Sonam Kapoor, Daniel Lee, Dustin Lillie, Kristen Mekeel, Steven Meranze, Diane Moate, William Perry, Shira L Robbins, Thomas J Savides, Brijen J Shah, Kimberly Thillman, Craig Uthe, Christian Tomaszewski, Britney Wade, Lynn Webb, William O Cooper","doi":"10.1136/leader-2024-001134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Some unprofessional behaviours, including allegations of discrimination, hostile work environment, violent behaviour, sexual boundary violations, potentially impaired clinicians, professional integrity and retaliation, require healthcare organisations to have a timely and reliable process to guide investigation, inquiry and/or interventions. Failure to have a consistent approach creates extraordinary risk for organisations, their team members and their patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Descriptive study of five health systems that participate in a national professionalism collaborative through the Vanderbilt Health Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy (CPPA) and implemented a huddle process to guide the initial disposition of event reports describing unprofessional behaviours that might warrant investigation, inquiry or intervention. Each site applied lessons learnt over the study period to refine the huddle participants, the process for the huddle and the tracking of information based on their experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study, the participating sites held 219 huddles, which represented <1% of reports processed by CPPA during the study period. The most common type of reports resulting in a huddle included allegations of discrimination (30% of huddles) or hostile work environment (29%). Other common reasons for huddles included violent or aggressive behaviour (15%) or potential sexual boundary violations (13%). Additional reasons for huddles included concerns for an impaired clinician (3%), integrity (2%) or retaliation against a reporter for a previous electronic safety event report (2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementing a huddle to review and guide next steps for reports including allegations of serious behaviours provided the healthcare organisations a process to reduce the variability of response to such reports and fostered increased communication and trust among organisational key stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":36677,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Leader","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Leader","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2024-001134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Some unprofessional behaviours, including allegations of discrimination, hostile work environment, violent behaviour, sexual boundary violations, potentially impaired clinicians, professional integrity and retaliation, require healthcare organisations to have a timely and reliable process to guide investigation, inquiry and/or interventions. Failure to have a consistent approach creates extraordinary risk for organisations, their team members and their patients.

Methods: Descriptive study of five health systems that participate in a national professionalism collaborative through the Vanderbilt Health Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy (CPPA) and implemented a huddle process to guide the initial disposition of event reports describing unprofessional behaviours that might warrant investigation, inquiry or intervention. Each site applied lessons learnt over the study period to refine the huddle participants, the process for the huddle and the tracking of information based on their experience.

Results: During the study, the participating sites held 219 huddles, which represented <1% of reports processed by CPPA during the study period. The most common type of reports resulting in a huddle included allegations of discrimination (30% of huddles) or hostile work environment (29%). Other common reasons for huddles included violent or aggressive behaviour (15%) or potential sexual boundary violations (13%). Additional reasons for huddles included concerns for an impaired clinician (3%), integrity (2%) or retaliation against a reporter for a previous electronic safety event report (2%).

Conclusions: Implementing a huddle to review and guide next steps for reports including allegations of serious behaviours provided the healthcare organisations a process to reduce the variability of response to such reports and fostered increased communication and trust among organisational key stakeholders.

医疗环境中的不专业行为可能需要立即调查、询问或干预。
背景:一些不专业的行为,包括歧视指控、敌对的工作环境、暴力行为、性边界侵犯、可能损害临床医生、职业操守和报复,要求医疗机构有一个及时和可靠的过程来指导调查、询问和/或干预。没有一致的方法会给组织、团队成员和患者带来巨大的风险。方法:通过范德比尔特患者和专业倡导健康中心(CPPA)对参与国家专业协作的五个卫生系统进行描述性研究,并实施了一个分组过程,以指导描述可能需要调查、询问或干预的不专业行为的事件报告的初始处理。每个站点都应用了研究期间的经验教训,以改进分组参与者、分组过程以及根据他们的经验跟踪信息。结果:在研究期间,参与的站点举行了219次会议,这些会议代表了以下结论:实施会议以审查和指导报告的下一步工作,包括对严重行为的指控,为医疗保健组织提供了一个过程,以减少对此类报告的反应的可变性,并促进了组织关键利益相关者之间的沟通和信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Leader
BMJ Leader Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.40%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信