MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794976560 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194933

Bad manners in the Emergency Department: Incivility among doctors

2018· article· en· W2794976560 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karsten Klingberg, Khaled Gadelhak, Sabrina Jegerlehner, Adam D. Brown, Aristomenis K. Exadaktylos, David Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentIncivilityMedicineJob satisfactionQuarter (Canadian coin)BurnoutPsychologyFamily medicineClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Negative workplace behaviour, especially negative communication is a recognised problem in many organisations and is known to have serious impact on workplace performance, productivity and personal wellbeing. Emergency Departments (ED) can be high stress environments in which communication and perceptions of respect between physicians and other staff may underlie individual functioning. We conducted a study to estimate the influence of incivility (ICV) among physicians in the ED. METHODS: We developed an online survey to assess workplace incivility in the ED. We focussed on frequency, origin, reasons and situations where ICV was reported. To measure the levels and the potential influence of ICV on psychological safety, social stress and personal wellbeing we correlated our questionnaire to standard psychological scales. Statistical analysis included Students t-test, chi squared distribution and Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: We invited all seventy-seven ED physicians to participate in our survey. Among those that completed (n = 50, 65%) the survey, 9% of ED physicians reported frequent (1/week) and 38% occasional (1/month) incidents of ICV. 28% of physicians reported experiencing ICV once per quarter and 21% reported a frequency of only once per year, no physician reported ICV on a daily basis. Levels of ICV were significantly higher in interactions with specialists from outside then within the ED (p<0.01). ICV was perceived particularly during critical situations. Our findings showed a significant correlation between internal (within the ED team) ICV and psychological safety. To ED physicians internal ICV was associated with lower levels of psychological safety (p<0.01). ICV displayed from sources outside the ED team was not associated with psychological safety, but we found a significant influence of external ICV on personal irritability and reduced wellbeing (p<0.01). DISCUSSION: The incidence of incivility was high among the ED physicians. Although this was a small sample, the association between workplace ICV and psychological safety, personal irritation as well personal comfort suggests that ICV may be an important variable underlying ED team performance. These findings further underscore the need to foster a culture of respect and good communication between departments, as levels of ICV were highest with physicians from outside the ED. Future research would benefit from examining strategies to prevent and reduce ICV and identify reasons for personal variation in perception of ICV. During critical situations and in general collaboration with specialists, awareness of ICV and countermeasures are important to avoid decreased performance and negative impact on staff and patient.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207