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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".