Implementation of ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardians’ in NHS acute and mental health trusts in England: the FTSUG mixed-methods study

Aled Jones, J. Maben, Mary Adams, R. Mannion, C. Banks, Joanne Blake, Kathleen Job, D. Kelly
{"title":"Implementation of ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardians’ in NHS acute and mental health trusts in England: the FTSUG mixed-methods study","authors":"Aled Jones, J. Maben, Mary Adams, R. Mannion, C. Banks, Joanne Blake, Kathleen Job, D. Kelly","doi":"10.3310/guws9067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The introduction of ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardians’ into every NHS trust in England was intended to support workers and trusts to better raise, respond to and learn from speaking-up concerns. However, only broad guidance was provided on how to implement the role. As a result, there is the potential for important local differences to emerge as the role is implemented across England.\n \n \n \n The overall aim of this study was to better understand the implementation of Guardians in acute trusts and mental health trusts.\n \n \n \n The Freedom to Speak Up Guardian role was conceptualised as a complex intervention consisting of several interacting and interlocking components spanning the macro level (national organisations), the meso level (individual trusts) and the micro level (employees, teams and wards/units). A mixed-methods study was designed, which consisted of three work packages: (1) a systematic narrative review of the international literature regarding interventions promoting ‘speaking up’ by health-care employees; (2) semistructured telephone interviews with Guardians working in acute hospital trusts and mental health trusts; and (3) qualitative case studies of Freedom to Speak Up Guardian implementation, consisting of observations and interviews undertaken in four acute trusts and two mental health trusts. Interviews were also undertaken with national stakeholders.\n \n \n \n Acute trusts and mental health NHS trusts in England.\n \n \n \n Work package 2: Freedom to Speak Up Guardians (n = 87) were interviewed. Work package 3: 116 interviews with key stakeholders involved in pre-implementation and early implementation decision-making, workers who had spoken up to the Guardian, and national stakeholders.\n \n \n \n Wide variability was identified in how the Guardian role had been implemented, resourced and deployed by NHS trusts. ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardian’ is best considered an umbrella term, and multiple versions of the role exist simultaneously across England. Any comparisons of Guardians’ effectiveness are likely to be possible or meaningful only when this variability is properly accounted for. Many Freedom to Speak Up Guardians identified how a lack of available resources, especially time scarcity, negatively and significantly affected their ability to effectively respond to concerns; their opportunities to collect, analyse and learn from speaking-up data; and, more generally, the extent to which they developed their role and speak-up culture.\n \n \n \n It is possible that those whom we interviewed were more receptive of Freedom to Speak Up Guardians or may have been biased by ‘socially desirability’, and their answers may not always have represented respondents’ true perceptions.\n \n \n \n Optimal implementation of the Guardian role has five components: (1) establishing an early, collaborative and coherent strategy congruent with the values of Freedom to Speak Up fosters the implementation of (2) policies and robust, yet supportive, practices (3) informed by frequent and reflexive monitoring of Freedom to Speak Up implementation that is (4) underpinned by sufficient time and resource allocation that leads to (5) a positive implementation climate that is congruent with Freedom to Speak Up values and is well placed to engender positive and sustainable Freedom to Speak Up culture and the well-being of a Guardian.\n \n \n \n The following recommendations for future research are considered to be of equal priority. Studies of the speaking-up experiences of minority communities and ‘seldom-heard’ workforce groups are a priority requirement. There is also value in undertaking a similar study in non-hospital settings and where peripatetic working is commonplace, such as in ambulance services and in primary care settings. The role of human resources and ‘middle managers’ in the management of concerns is an area requiring further research, especially regarding concerns relating to unprofessional and transgressive behaviours. Devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales have adopted different approaches to speaking up; research undertaken in these contexts would offer valuable comparative insights. Researching the Guardian role ≥ 5 years post implementation is recommended to understand the medium-term impact and the longer-term sustainability of the role and well-being of Guardians.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as ISRCTN38163690 and has the study registration CRD42018106311.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/guws9067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The introduction of ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardians’ into every NHS trust in England was intended to support workers and trusts to better raise, respond to and learn from speaking-up concerns. However, only broad guidance was provided on how to implement the role. As a result, there is the potential for important local differences to emerge as the role is implemented across England. The overall aim of this study was to better understand the implementation of Guardians in acute trusts and mental health trusts. The Freedom to Speak Up Guardian role was conceptualised as a complex intervention consisting of several interacting and interlocking components spanning the macro level (national organisations), the meso level (individual trusts) and the micro level (employees, teams and wards/units). A mixed-methods study was designed, which consisted of three work packages: (1) a systematic narrative review of the international literature regarding interventions promoting ‘speaking up’ by health-care employees; (2) semistructured telephone interviews with Guardians working in acute hospital trusts and mental health trusts; and (3) qualitative case studies of Freedom to Speak Up Guardian implementation, consisting of observations and interviews undertaken in four acute trusts and two mental health trusts. Interviews were also undertaken with national stakeholders. Acute trusts and mental health NHS trusts in England. Work package 2: Freedom to Speak Up Guardians (n = 87) were interviewed. Work package 3: 116 interviews with key stakeholders involved in pre-implementation and early implementation decision-making, workers who had spoken up to the Guardian, and national stakeholders. Wide variability was identified in how the Guardian role had been implemented, resourced and deployed by NHS trusts. ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardian’ is best considered an umbrella term, and multiple versions of the role exist simultaneously across England. Any comparisons of Guardians’ effectiveness are likely to be possible or meaningful only when this variability is properly accounted for. Many Freedom to Speak Up Guardians identified how a lack of available resources, especially time scarcity, negatively and significantly affected their ability to effectively respond to concerns; their opportunities to collect, analyse and learn from speaking-up data; and, more generally, the extent to which they developed their role and speak-up culture. It is possible that those whom we interviewed were more receptive of Freedom to Speak Up Guardians or may have been biased by ‘socially desirability’, and their answers may not always have represented respondents’ true perceptions. Optimal implementation of the Guardian role has five components: (1) establishing an early, collaborative and coherent strategy congruent with the values of Freedom to Speak Up fosters the implementation of (2) policies and robust, yet supportive, practices (3) informed by frequent and reflexive monitoring of Freedom to Speak Up implementation that is (4) underpinned by sufficient time and resource allocation that leads to (5) a positive implementation climate that is congruent with Freedom to Speak Up values and is well placed to engender positive and sustainable Freedom to Speak Up culture and the well-being of a Guardian. The following recommendations for future research are considered to be of equal priority. Studies of the speaking-up experiences of minority communities and ‘seldom-heard’ workforce groups are a priority requirement. There is also value in undertaking a similar study in non-hospital settings and where peripatetic working is commonplace, such as in ambulance services and in primary care settings. The role of human resources and ‘middle managers’ in the management of concerns is an area requiring further research, especially regarding concerns relating to unprofessional and transgressive behaviours. Devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales have adopted different approaches to speaking up; research undertaken in these contexts would offer valuable comparative insights. Researching the Guardian role ≥ 5 years post implementation is recommended to understand the medium-term impact and the longer-term sustainability of the role and well-being of Guardians. This study is registered as ISRCTN38163690 and has the study registration CRD42018106311. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
在英格兰国民保健制度急性和精神健康信托基金中“监护人说话自由”的实施:FTSUG混合方法研究
将“畅所欲言的守护者自由”引入英国国家医疗服务体系的每一个信托机构,旨在支持工作人员和信托机构更好地提出、回应和从公开表达的担忧中学习。然而,关于如何发挥这一作用,只提供了广泛的指导。因此,随着该角色在英格兰各地的实施,有可能出现重要的地方差异。本研究的总体目的是更好地了解监护人在急性信托和心理健康信托中的实施情况。“畅所欲言的守护者”角色被概念化为一种复杂的干预措施,包括宏观层面(国家组织)、微观层面(个人信托)和微观层面(员工、团队和病房/单位)的几个相互作用和相互关联的组成部分。设计了一项混合方法研究,该研究由三个工作包组成:(1)对有关促进医护人员“畅所欲言”的干预措施的国际文献进行系统叙述性审查;(2) 对在急性医院信托基金和心理健康信托基金工作的Guardians进行半结构化电话采访;以及(3)《自由发声守护者》实施情况的定性案例研究,包括在四个急性信托和两个心理健康信托中进行的观察和访谈。还与国家利益攸关方进行了访谈。英国的急性信托和心理健康NHS信托。工作包2:畅所欲言的守护者(n = 87)接受了访谈。工作包3:116次采访参与实施前和早期实施决策的关键利益相关者、向《卫报》发表意见的工作人员和国家利益相关者。英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)信托机构在实施、资源和部署监护人角色方面存在很大差异“自由畅所欲言的守护者”最好被认为是一个总括性术语,该角色的多个版本在英格兰同时存在。只有在适当考虑到这种可变性的情况下,对“守护者”的有效性进行任何比较才有可能或有意义。许多“畅所欲言的自由卫士”发现,缺乏可用资源,特别是时间短缺,对他们有效回应关切的能力产生了负面和重大影响;他们收集、分析和学习公开数据的机会;以及更普遍地说,他们在多大程度上发展了自己的角色和发声文化。我们采访的那些人可能更容易接受“畅所欲言的守护者”,或者可能因“社会可取性”而有偏见,他们的回答可能并不总是代表受访者的真实看法。监护人角色的最佳实施有五个组成部分:(1)建立一个与言论自由价值观相一致的早期、协作和连贯的战略,有助于(2)政策的实施,实践(3)通过对“畅所欲言的自由”实施的频繁和反射性监测来提供信息,(4)以充足的时间和资源分配为基础,从而产生(5)与“畅所欲的自由”价值观相一致的积极实施氛围,并有利于形成积极和可持续的“畅所想的自由”文化和监护人的福祉。以下关于未来研究的建议被认为是同等优先事项。优先要求研究少数民族社区和“很少听到”的劳动力群体的发声经历。在非医院环境中以及在救护车服务和初级保健环境中等四处工作很常见的环境中进行类似的研究也有价值。人力资源和“中层管理人员”在问题管理中的作用是一个需要进一步研究的领域,特别是关于与不专业和违法行为有关的问题。苏格兰和威尔士的分权政府采取了不同的发声方式;在这些背景下进行的研究将提供有价值的比较见解。研究监护人角色≥ 建议在实施后5年了解监护人的作用和福祉的中期影响和长期可持续性。本研究注册号为ISRCTN38163690,研究注册号CRD42018106311。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第23期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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