如何衡量精神卫生保健人员的心理安全?使用名义组技术开发问卷项目。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Katharina Sophie Vogt, John Baker, Rebecca Coleman, Sarah Kendal, Bethany Griffin, Taha Anjum, Kirsty Louise Ashley, Bethany Lauren Archer, Katherine Berry, Robyn Feldman, Stephanie Gray, Sally Jane Giles, Benjamin James Helliwell, Chelsea Hill, Aimee Elisha Hogan, Magdalena Iwanow, Timon Anton Arie Jansen, Zach Johnson, James A Kelly, Joshua Law, Emily Mizen, Owenvbiugie Omorefe Obasohan, Maria Panagioti, Ffion Smith-Wilkes, Sarah Steeg, Christopher D J Taylor, Natasha Tyler, Sophie Wade, Judith Johnson
{"title":"如何衡量精神卫生保健人员的心理安全?使用名义组技术开发问卷项目。","authors":"Katharina Sophie Vogt, John Baker, Rebecca Coleman, Sarah Kendal, Bethany Griffin, Taha Anjum, Kirsty Louise Ashley, Bethany Lauren Archer, Katherine Berry, Robyn Feldman, Stephanie Gray, Sally Jane Giles, Benjamin James Helliwell, Chelsea Hill, Aimee Elisha Hogan, Magdalena Iwanow, Timon Anton Arie Jansen, Zach Johnson, James A Kelly, Joshua Law, Emily Mizen, Owenvbiugie Omorefe Obasohan, Maria Panagioti, Ffion Smith-Wilkes, Sarah Steeg, Christopher D J Taylor, Natasha Tyler, Sophie Wade, Judith Johnson","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzae086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There have been growing concerns about the well-being of staff in inpatient mental health settings, with studies suggesting that they have higher burnout and greater work-related stress levels than staff in other healthcare sectors. When addressing staff well-being, psychological safety can be a useful concept. However, there is no measure of psychological safety that is suitable for use in inpatient mental health settings. Edmondson (1999) is the most commonly used measure of psychological safety, but it was designed for use in general physical healthcare settings. As inpatient mental health settings are unique environments, transferability of knowledge from physical to mental healthcare settings cannot be assumed. We sought to develop questionnaire items that capture psychological safety among healthcare staff working in acute inpatient mental healthcare settings. We used the nominal group technique, a consensus method involving rounds of discussion, idea generation, and item rating/ranking to identify priorities. Twenty-eight stakeholders participated, including 4 who had lived experience of mental health problems, 11 academics and 18 healthcare professionals (8 participants identified with more than 1 category). The study involved a workshop with three parts: (i) an overview of current research and limitations of the Edmondson (1999) measure as outlined above, (ii) discussion on what items should be retained from the Edmondson (1999) measure, and (iii) discussion on what items should be added to the Edmondson (1999) measure. Twenty-one items were generated and retained to capture psychological safety in inpatient mental health settings. These measure professionals' sense of being valued by their team and organization, feeling supported at work, feeling physically safe and protected from physical harm, and knowing they can raise concerns about risk and safety. This is the first study to generate questionnaire items suitable for measuring staff psychological safety in mental health settings. These have been generated via a consensus method to ensure stakeholders' views are reflected. Further research is needed to evaluate factor structure, internal reliability, and convergent validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421378/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How can we measure psychological safety in mental healthcare staff? Developing questionnaire items using a nominal groups technique.\",\"authors\":\"Katharina Sophie Vogt, John Baker, Rebecca Coleman, Sarah Kendal, Bethany Griffin, Taha Anjum, Kirsty Louise Ashley, Bethany Lauren Archer, Katherine Berry, Robyn Feldman, Stephanie Gray, Sally Jane Giles, Benjamin James Helliwell, Chelsea Hill, Aimee Elisha Hogan, Magdalena Iwanow, Timon Anton Arie Jansen, Zach Johnson, James A Kelly, Joshua Law, Emily Mizen, Owenvbiugie Omorefe Obasohan, Maria Panagioti, Ffion Smith-Wilkes, Sarah Steeg, Christopher D J Taylor, Natasha Tyler, Sophie Wade, Judith Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/intqhc/mzae086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There have been growing concerns about the well-being of staff in inpatient mental health settings, with studies suggesting that they have higher burnout and greater work-related stress levels than staff in other healthcare sectors. When addressing staff well-being, psychological safety can be a useful concept. However, there is no measure of psychological safety that is suitable for use in inpatient mental health settings. Edmondson (1999) is the most commonly used measure of psychological safety, but it was designed for use in general physical healthcare settings. As inpatient mental health settings are unique environments, transferability of knowledge from physical to mental healthcare settings cannot be assumed. We sought to develop questionnaire items that capture psychological safety among healthcare staff working in acute inpatient mental healthcare settings. We used the nominal group technique, a consensus method involving rounds of discussion, idea generation, and item rating/ranking to identify priorities. Twenty-eight stakeholders participated, including 4 who had lived experience of mental health problems, 11 academics and 18 healthcare professionals (8 participants identified with more than 1 category). The study involved a workshop with three parts: (i) an overview of current research and limitations of the Edmondson (1999) measure as outlined above, (ii) discussion on what items should be retained from the Edmondson (1999) measure, and (iii) discussion on what items should be added to the Edmondson (1999) measure. Twenty-one items were generated and retained to capture psychological safety in inpatient mental health settings. These measure professionals' sense of being valued by their team and organization, feeling supported at work, feeling physically safe and protected from physical harm, and knowing they can raise concerns about risk and safety. This is the first study to generate questionnaire items suitable for measuring staff psychological safety in mental health settings. These have been generated via a consensus method to ensure stakeholders' views are reflected. Further research is needed to evaluate factor structure, internal reliability, and convergent validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421378/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae086\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae086","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究表明,与其他医疗行业的员工相比,精神疾病住院患者的职业倦怠程度更高,工作压力也更大。在解决员工福利问题时,心理安全是一个有用的概念。然而,目前还没有适合用于住院精神卫生机构的心理安全衡量标准。埃德蒙森(Edmondson,1999 年)是最常用的心理安全测量方法,但它是为普通医疗机构设计的。由于住院精神卫生机构的环境比较特殊,因此不能假定这些知识可以从物理医疗机构转移到精神医疗机构。方法 我们试图开发出能反映在急诊住院精神医疗机构工作的医护人员心理安全状况的问卷项目。我们使用了名义小组技术,这是一种共识方法,包括多轮讨论、想法生成和项目评级/排序,以确定优先事项。28 位利益相关者参与了此次研究,其中包括 4 位有心理健康问题亲身经历者、11 位学者和 18 位医疗保健专业人士(8 位参与者认同一个以上的类别)。该研究包括一个由三部分组成的研讨会:1)概述当前的研究和上述埃德蒙森(1999 年)测量法的局限性;2)讨论埃德蒙森(1999 年)测量法应保留哪些项目;3)讨论埃德蒙森(1999 年)测量法应增加哪些项目。结果 生成并保留了 21 个项目,以反映住院心理健康环境中的心理安全。这些项目衡量了专业人员对其团队和组织的重视程度、在工作中获得支持的感觉、人身安全和免受人身伤害的感觉,以及知道自己可以提出对风险和安全的担忧。结论 这是第一项为测量精神卫生机构员工心理安全而编制问卷项目的研究。这些项目是通过协商一致的方法产生的,以确保利益相关者的观点得到反映。还需要进一步的研究来评估因子结构、内部可靠性和收敛有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How can we measure psychological safety in mental healthcare staff? Developing questionnaire items using a nominal groups technique.

There have been growing concerns about the well-being of staff in inpatient mental health settings, with studies suggesting that they have higher burnout and greater work-related stress levels than staff in other healthcare sectors. When addressing staff well-being, psychological safety can be a useful concept. However, there is no measure of psychological safety that is suitable for use in inpatient mental health settings. Edmondson (1999) is the most commonly used measure of psychological safety, but it was designed for use in general physical healthcare settings. As inpatient mental health settings are unique environments, transferability of knowledge from physical to mental healthcare settings cannot be assumed. We sought to develop questionnaire items that capture psychological safety among healthcare staff working in acute inpatient mental healthcare settings. We used the nominal group technique, a consensus method involving rounds of discussion, idea generation, and item rating/ranking to identify priorities. Twenty-eight stakeholders participated, including 4 who had lived experience of mental health problems, 11 academics and 18 healthcare professionals (8 participants identified with more than 1 category). The study involved a workshop with three parts: (i) an overview of current research and limitations of the Edmondson (1999) measure as outlined above, (ii) discussion on what items should be retained from the Edmondson (1999) measure, and (iii) discussion on what items should be added to the Edmondson (1999) measure. Twenty-one items were generated and retained to capture psychological safety in inpatient mental health settings. These measure professionals' sense of being valued by their team and organization, feeling supported at work, feeling physically safe and protected from physical harm, and knowing they can raise concerns about risk and safety. This is the first study to generate questionnaire items suitable for measuring staff psychological safety in mental health settings. These have been generated via a consensus method to ensure stakeholders' views are reflected. Further research is needed to evaluate factor structure, internal reliability, and convergent validity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
×
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