10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predictors and triggers of incivility within healthcare teams: a systematic review of the literature

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To explore predictors and triggers of incivility in medical teams, defined as behaviours that violate norms of respect but whose intent to harm is ambiguous.

          Design

          Systematic literature review of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies.

          Data sources

          Database searches according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline in Medline, CINHAL, PsychInfo, Web of Science and Embase up to January 2020.

          Eligibility criteria

          Original empirical quantitative and qualitative studies focusing on predictors and triggers of incivilities in hospital healthcare teams, excluding psychiatric care.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          Of the 1397 publications screened, 53 were included (44 quantitative and 9 qualitative studies); publication date ranged from 2002 to January 2020.

          Results

          Based on the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scores, the quality of the quantitative studies were relatively low overall (mean MERSQI score of 9.93), but quality of studies increased with publication year (r=0.52; p<0.001). Initiators of incivility were consistently described as having a difficult personality, yet few studies investigated their other characteristics and motivations. Results were mostly inconsistent regarding individual characteristics of targets of incivilities (eg, age, gender, ethnicity), but less experienced healthcare professionals were more exposed to incivility. In most studies, participants reported experiencing incivilities mainly within their own professional discipline (eg, nurse to nurse) rather than across disciplines (eg, physician to nurse). Evidence of specific medical specialties particularly affected by incivility was poor, with surgery as one of the most cited uncivil specialties. Finally, situational and cultural predictors of higher incivility levels included high workload, communication or coordination issues, patient safety concerns, lack of support and poor leadership.

          Conclusions

          Although a wide range of predictors and triggers of incivilities are reported in the literature, identifying characteristics of initiators and the targets of incivilities yielded inconsistent results. The use of diverse and high-quality methods is needed to explore the dynamic nature of situational and cultural triggers of incivility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association between funding and quality of published medical education research.

              Methodological shortcomings in medical education research are often attributed to insufficient funding, yet an association between funding and study quality has not been established. To develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring the quality of education research studies and to assess the relationship between funding and study quality. Internal consistency, interrater and intrarater reliability, and criterion validity were determined for a 10-item medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). This was applied to 210 medical education research studies published in 13 peer-reviewed journals between September 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. The amount of funding obtained per study and the publication record of the first author were determined by survey. Study quality as measured by the MERSQI (potential maximum total score, 18; maximum domain score, 3), amount of funding per study, and previous publications by the first author. The mean MERSQI score was 9.95 (SD, 2.34; range, 5-16). Mean domain scores were highest for data analysis (2.58) and lowest for validity (0.69). Intraclass correlation coefficient ranges for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.72 to 0.98 and 0.78 to 0.998, respectively. Total MERSQI scores were associated with expert quality ratings (Spearman rho, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.84; P < .001), 3-year citation rate (0.8 increase in score per 10 citations; 95% CI, 0.03-1.30; P = .003), and journal impact factor (1.0 increase in score per 6-unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.34-1.56; P = .003). In multivariate analysis, MERSQI scores were independently associated with study funding of $20 000 or more (0.95 increase in score; 95% CI, 0.22-1.86; P = .045) and previous medical education publications by the first author (1.07 increase in score per 20 publications; 95% CI, 0.15-2.23; P = .047). The quality of published medical education research is associated with study funding.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2020
                7 June 2020
                : 10
                : 6
                : e035471
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCenter for Surgery and Public Health (CSPH) , Brigham and Women's Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [2 ] STRATUS Center for Medical Simulation , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of surgery , Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Clinical Surgery , University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Psychology , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
                [6 ] Fralin Biomedical Research Institute (FBRI) at Virginia Tech Carilion , Roanoke, Virginia, USA
                [7 ] departmentCenter for Simulation, Research and Patient Safety , Carilion Clinic , Roanoke, Virginia, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Sandra Keller; sandra.keller@ 123456insel.ch
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3229-9003
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-035471
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035471
                7282335
                32513884
                599af9e5-dec2-445e-a4bf-c8a1dd073304
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 02 November 2019
                : 05 March 2020
                : 29 April 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001711, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung;
                Award ID: P2NEP1 178574
                Categories
                Medical Education and Training
                1506
                1709
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                medical education & training,health & safety,quality in healthcare
                Medicine
                medical education & training, health & safety, quality in healthcare

                Comments

                Comment on this article