Psychological Safety Competency Training During the Clinical Internship From the Perspective of Health Care Trainee Mentors in 11 Pan-European Countries: Mixed Methods Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In the field of research, psychological safety has been widely recognized as a contributing factor to improving the quality of care and patient safety. However, its consideration in the curricula and traineeship pathways of residents and health care students is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the extent to which health care trainees acquire psychological safety competencies during their internships in clinical settings and identify what measures can be taken to promote their learning. METHODS: A mixed methods observational study based on a consensus conference and an open-ended survey among a sample of health care trainee mentors from health care institutions in a pan-European context was conducted. First, we administered an ad hoc questionnaire to assess the perceived degree of acquisition or implementation and significance of competencies (knowledge, attitudes, and skills) and institutional interventions in psychological safety. Second, we asked mentors to propose measures to foster among trainees those competencies that, in the first phase of the study, obtained an average acquisition score of <3.4 (scale of 1-5). A content analysis of the information collected was carried out, and the spontaneity of each category and theme was determined. RESULTS: In total, 173 mentors from 11 pan-European countries completed the first questionnaire (response rate: 173/256, 67.6%), of which 63 (36.4%) participated in the second consultation. The competencies with the lowest acquisition level were related to warning a professional that their behavior posed a risk to the patient, managing their possible bad reaction, and offering support to a colleague who becomes a second victim. The mentors' proposals for improvement of this competency gap referred to training in communication skills and patient safety, safety culture, work climate, individual attitudes, a reference person for trainees, formal incorporation into the curricula of health care degrees and specialization pathways, specific systems and mechanisms to give trainees a voice, institutional risk management, regulations, guidelines and standards, supervision, and resources to support trainees. In terms of teaching methodology, the mentors recommended innovative strategies, many of them based on technological tools or solutions, including videos, seminars, lectures, workshops, simulation learning or role-playing with or without professional actors, case studies, videos with practical demonstrations or model situations, panel discussions, clinical sessions for joint analysis of patient safety incidents, and debriefings to set and discuss lessons learned. CONCLUSIONS: This study sought to promote psychological safety competencies as a formal part of the training of future health care professionals, facilitating the translation of international guidelines into practice and clinical settings in the pan-European context.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».