MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296946546 · doi:10.1186/s41077-022-00227-y

“Maybe I’m not that approachable”: using simulation to elicit team leaders’ perceptions of their role in facilitating speaking up behaviors

2022· article· en· W4296946546 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Simulation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western UniversityIntuitive Foundation
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyHealth administrationHealth services researchSocial psychologyMedical educationPublic healthMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Simulation research that seeks to solve the problem of silence among interprofessional teams has focused almost exclusively on training subordinate team members to be more courageous and to speak up to team leaders using direct challenge scripts despite the great interpersonal cost. Consequently, the existing literature overemphasizes the responsibility of subordinate team members for speaking up and fails to consider the role and responsibilities of team leaders in sustaining silence. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe the subtle behaviors and actions of team leaders that both promote and discourage speaking up. METHODS: This study used a simulation-primed qualitative inquiry approach. Obstetricians (OB) at one academic center participated in an interprofessional simulation as an embedded participant. Five challenge moments (CM) were scripted for the OB involving deliberate clinical judgment errors or professionalism infractions. Other participants were unaware of the OB embedded participant role. Thirteen iterations were completed with 39 participants. Twelve faculty members completed a subsequent semi-structured interview. Scenarios were videotaped; debriefs and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: After participating in an interprofessional simulation, faculty participants reflected that being an approachable team leader requires more than simply avoiding disruptive behaviors. We found that approachability necessitates that team leaders actively create the conditions in which team members perceive that speaking up is welcomed, rather than an act of bravery. In practice, this conceptualization of approachability involves the tangible actions of signaling availability through presence, uncertainty through thinking aloud, and vulnerability through debriefing. CONCLUSIONS: By using faculty as embedded participants with scripted errors, our simulation design provided an ideal learning opportunity to prompt discussion of the subtle behaviors and actions of team leaders that both promote and discourage speaking up. Faculty participants gained a new appreciation that their actions create the conditions for speaking up to occur before critical incidents through their verbal and non-verbal communication.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.385 · 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