posted on 2019-08-20, 15:16authored byGraham Paul Martin, Sarah Chew, Mary Dixon-Woods
Objectives: To examine the experiences of clinical and managerial leaders in the English healthcare system charged with implementing policy goals of openness, particularly in relation to improving employee voice. Design: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. Setting: National Health Service, regulatory and third-sector organisations in England. Participants: Fifty-one interviewees, including senior leaders in healthcare organisations (38) and policymakers and representatives of other relevant regulatory, legal and third-sector organisations (13). Main outcome measures: Not applicable. Results: Participants recognised the limitations of treating the new policies as an exercise in procedural implementation alone and highlighted the need for additional ‘cultural engineering’ to engender change. However, formidable impediments included legacies of historical examples of detriment arising from speaking up, the anxiety arising from increased monitoring and the introduction of a legislative imperative and challenges in identifying areas characterised by a lack of openness and engaging with them to improve employee voice. Beyond healthcare organisations themselves, recent legal cases and examples of ‘blacklisting’ of whistle-blowers served to reinforce the view that giving voice to concerns was a risky endeavour. Conclusions: Implementation of procedural interventions to support openness is challenging but feasible; engineering cultural change is much more daunting, given deep-rooted and pervasive assumptions about what should be said and the consequences of mis-speaking, together with ongoing ambivalences in the organisational environment about the propriety of giving voice to concerns.
Funding
This study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care Policy Research Programme (PR-R15-0116-23001) and sponsored by the University of Leicester. GPM acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands. MDW and GPM are supported by the Health Foundation's grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute. The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute is supported by the Health Foundation – an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and healthcare for people in the United Kingdom. MDW is a Wellcome Trust Investigator (award WT09789) and a senior investigator in the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
History
Citation
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2019, 112(4)
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF LIFE SCIENCES/School of Medicine/Department of Health Sciences