Patient Safety Culture As Spaces Of Social Struggle: Understanding patient safety culture within hospital isolation settings.  A Qualitative Study.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1733735/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Patient Safety Culture As Spaces Of Social Struggle: Understanding patient safety culture within hospital isolation settings. A Qualitative Study.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1733735/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: In recent times, infection prevention and patient safety have become a global health policy priority with thought being given to understanding organisational culture within healthcare, and of its significance in initiating sustained quality improvement within infection prevention and patient safety.

Research Methods: In this paper, we utilise focus group interviews at two hospital sites within one health board in order to engage nursing staff and other healthcare workers in elaborating on their understandings of infection prevention practices and patient safety culture within isolation settings in their organisation.

Results: Positioned against a background of healthcare restructuring and ever increasing uncertainty, our study found two very different hospitals in regard to patient safety culture and infection prevention practice. The utilisation of focus group interviews revealed themes that characterises the ways in which interviewees understand the work they perform and the broader economic and political context in which they perform that work.

Conclusions: Drawing on the insights of Bourdieu, this paper theorises the field of patient safety as a space of social struggle. Patient safety is thus positioned within its social and cultural context, rather than as merely an epidemiological dilemma.

Patient safety culture

Infection prevention

Focus group interviews

Bourdieu

Nursing staff

Hospital isolation

Healthcare

Wales

Since the turn of the century, patient safety culture and the quality of care provided in the National Health Service (NHS) has come under significant scrutiny following a number of high profile cases; such as the cases of Bristol Royal Infirmary, Mid-Staffordshire NHS Hospital Trust and maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust and at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board in South Wales.[1] Concerns regarding the safety of paediatric cardiac surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary between 1984 and 1995, and of the high mortality rates of babies and safety of maternity services at Cwm Taf Morgannwg Health Board in 2019, led to two of the most far reaching public reviews ever untaken into the workings of the NHS. Both reports highlighted significant problems with the quality of patient experience, team working, communication and whistle blowing, accountability and organisational cultures [1, 2]. The Independent Review of Maternity Services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust that commenced in the summer of 2017, highlighted the failures of maternity services within the Trust over two decades [3, 4]. The review identified a number of issues uncovered in previous scandals within the health service. These include: Failures in leadership and teamwork, failures in following clinical guidelines, failures to listen to parents and patients, and failures to learn from mistakes and improve. Identified within the inquiry were ‘significant or major concerns’ relating to the care involved in nine maternal deaths, 131 stillbirths, 29 cases of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE), and 70 neonatal deaths; in addition to near 65 cases of brain damage that were often diagnosed only years later. Weaknesses in leadership and teamwork, identified in prior investigations into failings in maternity services at Furness General Hospital, Morecambe Bay [5] and at Cwm Taf Morgannwg Health Board in South Wales [2], included a culture of bullying and repeated failures by the board in facing up to problems. These reports have and continue to inform the UK patient safety agenda and help frame a broader policy agenda that may have been more difficult had the existing landscape of professional and organisational regulation not been shown to be lacking.

Patient safety practices are crucial in healthcare, particularly in terms of the prevention of infections and as identified in the national patient safety campaign, Sign Up To Safety, is considered as the responsibility of patients and service users; as well as practitioners. Patient safety has been defined as ‘the avoidance, prevention and amelioration of adverse outcomes or injuries stemming from the process of healthcare’ [6] and throughout the first two decades of the twenty first century, has become a global health policy priority; highlighted most recently with the COVID-19 pandemic. These years have seen the introduction of a number of strategies to support organisational learning [7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. That is, learning characterised as a continuous cycle of action and reflection [12]. The Public Enquiry into Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust [13] highlighted the systemic failure to learn from and respond to unsafe patient care. The report demonstrated the ways in which hospitals experience difficulties in maintaining focus on patient safety practices, becoming preoccupied with the business of the system (finances and targets) rather than the quality and safety of patient care. The subsequent Berwick Report generated lessons and suggestions for change for the UK government and the NHS in England [14]. Nevertheless, reforms to enhance patient safety have proved challenging to implement; as recent reviews into maternity services Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board [2] and Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust [3, 4] signify.

Infection prevention occupies a unique position within the field of patient safety in that it is universally relevant to nursing staff, other healthcare workers and patients at every healthcare encounter. In this way, the infection prevention focus of the Ebola outbreak response in West Africa 2014 – 2016, was critical in preventing transmission, both within communities and healthcare facilities through the implementation of infection prevention practices and context specific strategies. In similar ways, infection prevention measures have been established for the early detection, containment, delay and control of the global pandemic of Coronavirus (COVID-19) that was initially identified in Wuhan, China in late December, 2019 causing severe respiratory disease including pneumonia. Following the initial outbreak, COVID-19 specific infection prevention measures were rapidly introduced and include:

Barriers: Isolation, in negative pressure single room if available, of confirmed COVID-19 cases and of individuals meeting the COVID-19 case definition awaiting test results.

Barrier precautions: Personal protective equipment (PPE), screening and testing, and self isolation.

Skin: Hand hygiene, skin decontamination, cleansing and antisepsis.

Environmental infection prevention: Respiratory and cough hygiene, environmental decontamination, and the role of the environment and equipment.

Effective reporting within and between healthcare organisations, public health agencies and government.

Moreover, it is recognised that infection prevention practices and procedures, importantly, isolation precautions, are significant in preventing and controlling the transmission of COVID-19, MRSA, Norovirus, Clostridium difficile and any number of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs). Thus the priority being to ensure effective infection prevention practices and procedures are positioned within a wider framework of quality improvement, and the safety of patients, nursing staff and other healthcare workers.

Since the turn of the twenty first century, thought has been given to understanding the shared attitudes, beliefs, values and assumptions that underlie peoples’ actions in regard to issues of safety; and of the potential importance of these shared characteristics in initiating sustained changes within infection prevention and patient safety [9, 15, 16]. Within the literature, these shared characteristics are often referred to as the ‘safety culture’ of an organisation [17]. The challenge being to create a culture of patient safety, ensuring that the responsibility for infection prevention is embedded at all levels of an organisation. The notion of ‘safety culture’ first emerged in 1988, following the 1986 nuclear energy Chernobyl disaster.

In offering a contribution to the debate around patient safety culture, this paper reports on a qualitative study of infection prevention practices and patient safety culture within isolation settings at two NHS hospitals in Wales, UK. There is an abundance of available evidence supporting the measurement of safety culture within mainstream healthcare settings [18]. In this paper, we utilise focus group interviews in order to engage nursing staff and other healthcare workers in assessing and elaborating on infection prevention practices and patient safety culture within their organisation. Drawing on the insights of Bourdieu [19, 20], we theorise the field of patient safety as a space of social struggle.

Hospital Isolation:

In regard to infectious diseases, the notion of isolation refers to the possibility of separating infected people (or those suspected to be infected) from the broader population. The practice of isolation has historically been used in controlling and preventing the spread of infectious diseases and microorganisms such as COVID-19, MRSA, Clostridium difficile and Norovirus, and known routes of transmission of infection in healthcare facilities. The operation of standard precautions, including single room isolation, in addition, wherever necessary, to transmission-based precautions (TBPs), is understood as being a cornerstone of infection prevention practice, and is implemented for patients who are either known or suspected of being infected or colonised with pathogens spread through air, droplet or contact routes.

Although a seemingly simple notion, isolating patients is complex and challenging in implementation [21, 22, 23]. Caring for isolated patients fluctuates depending on the structure of the organisation, available resources and the changing epidemiology of HCAIs. Effective hospital isolation further involves nursing staff and other healthcare workers, and on occasions patients and visitors, conforming to particularly strict protocols. In addition to the prevention of occupational exposure to infectious diseases / pathogens via, for example, available immunisations, these protocols concern adherence to specific requirements of hospital isolation, the correct use of PPE, performing appropriate hand hygiene, the correct management of linen and waste, and the cleaning and decontamination of equipment and the environment; as well as. Moreover, each of these elements must be implemented without compromising the safety of patients. Even while research suggests that placing a patient in hospital isolation can have a serious impact on their wellbeing, welfare and liberty [21, 22, 23], the practice of creating safe spaces is based on a sound theoretical rationale and is critical for effective infection prevention [22].

Theoretical Framework - Patient Safety Culture as a Space of Social Struggle:

In understanding the culture of patient safety within hospital isolation settings, the theoretical insights of Bourdieu [19, 20] are particularly helpful. Bourdieu proposes a structural theory of practice which couples structure and agency in a dialectical relationship between structure, culture and power. He recognises the social relations among actors as being structured by, and in turn, contributing to the structuring of, the social relations of power among different positions. Bourdieu’s theoretical framework involves three primary notions. These are: Field, habitus and capital. For Bourdieu [19, 20], society contains a number of fields including healthcare, education and the state. The notion of field emphasises the dynamic relationships that give rise to social action within a given social space. Fields are understood as being bounded configurations or networks of ‘objective relations between positions’ [24]; identifiable by the shared concerns and activities of those within them. A field is a space of social struggles in which individuals and groups struggle for dominance over their field through acquiring and utilising forms of capital valued within that field. Bourdieu [25] defines four forms of capital circulating within fields. These are: Economic capital (financial resources), social capital (networks of valued relations), cultural capital (legitimated knowledge) and symbolic capital (honour and prestige). Capital in any given field is affected (For example: Valued, traded or ignored) by other fields and sub-fields. Bourdieu’s notion of field includes ideas, thoughts and actions; as well as the resources it attracts. The position of an individual within a field is governed by their access to resources and related power - The capital within that particular field. Each field or sub-field will further have ‘its own orthodoxy, its own way of doing things, rules, assumptions and beliefs; in sum, its own legitimate means’ [26].

Social structures can thus be understood as being both objective and subjective. The acquisition and distribution of capital can be quantified and described objectively, while subjectively, the process leads those involved normalising the forms and distribution of capital. This forms part of a process of making sense. In turn, this process produces the individual’s habitus. That is, their internalised history. A person’s habitus involves a system of ‘durable, transposable dispositions, that are structured, inculcated and generative’ [19]; by which an individual understands and aligns to the social world. Experiences become embodied within the habitus and it is through these experiences people develop a ‘feel for the game’ [27]; learning rules that become second nature.

Habitus is the product of history and is conditioned by experience in the social structure [19]. People’s agency and sense of possibility are shaped by the habitus. While habitus provides form and coherence to a person’s relationship with one or any number of fields, Bourdieu draws on the notion of doxa to offer further understanding as to what it means to feel at home in a field. That is, where there is a close fit between the subjective aspects of habitus and the objective structures and rhythms of a social setting [28]. Doxa involves knowledge shaped by experience. In this way, doxa reflects the taken for granted ordering of a field that builds over time for the independent and interdependent experiences and interactions in familiar fields between people who share a similar habitus [29].

According to Bourdieu [24], the work of the social scientist is, in large part, to problematise the taken for granted nature of these constructions. In the past, research into patient safety primarily focused on the causes, consequences and rates of errors, and the strategies to reduce them. Thus patient safety has largely been theorised as an epidemiological problem or technical strategy [30, 31]. Drawing on the insights of Bourdieu, this paper attempts to understand the culture of patient safety as being a sub-field of the wider field of healthcare. In doing so, patient safety is positioned within its social and cultural context; as a space of social struggle, rather than as merely an epidemiological or technical dilemma.

[1] During the submission of this paper, NHS England announced an independent review into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. The announcement follows a report by the Care Quality Commission that rated maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust as being ‘inadequate’ for a second time in two years. The review is to be Chaired by Donna Ockenden. Donna Ockenden led the independent review of maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust.

The research explored infection prevention and patient safety culture within hospital isolation settings, with nursing staff and other healthcare workers at two District General Hospitals (DGHs) at one health board in Wales, UK. Analysing and understanding a hospital’s patient safety culture is a particular challenge [32, 33, 34], especially in terms of isolation practices. While there are both quantitative and qualitative approaches, there is no clear consensus as to which method is best for exploring safety culture in specific healthcare contexts.

The research conducted during 2018 and 2019, and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, involved a series of two focus group interviews with healthcare professionals, including nursing staff, held four months apart, at each hospital site.

Study Setting:

The health board serves an urban and rural population across three counties and provides a full range of acute, intermediate, primary and community care services. Acute care is concentrated in four hospitals. The organisation employs 10,000 staff directly involved in patient care. At the time of fieldwork, the health board was going through a period of restructuring to healthcare across this part of Wales. The case study hospital sites reflect a range of demographic and organisational characteristics which may impact on infection prevention and patient safety culture within isolation settings.

Focus Group Interviews:

Increasing recognition of the benefits of the qualitative research paradigm has opened up new means of exploration and investigation. In this way, there has been an increase in the use of focus group interviews as a viable alternative to traditional one-to-one interviews. Krueger identifies focus groups as being ‘a carefully planned series of discussions designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, nonthreatening environment’ [35]. Focus groups offer semi-informal spaces with the aim being to elicit a discussion that allows the researcher to see the world from the participants' perspectives in an open, free, relaxed format. Focus group discussions allow the researcher to probe both the intellectual reasoning and emotional responses of participants while observing the underlying group dynamic.

The focus group interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of NHS workers at both hospital sites. In utilising purposive sampling [36], our aim was to obtain ‘rich data’ from a small number of healthcare workers, including nurses, selected because of their position and ability to provide in-depth information regarding the primary interest of our study. Our research design further utilised a variant of purposive sampling known as ‘maximum variability sampling’; in that our aim was to include a wide variety of different members of staff in terms of occupational group in order to explore the breadth of views and knowledge across occupational groups in regard to infection prevention and patient safety culture. The lead infection prevention nurse at each hospital site identified appropriate members of staff who they subsequently contacted and provided with letters of invite and study information sheets. Interviewees in our focus groups included medical consultants, senior nurses, nurses, healthcare support workers, domestics, physiotherapists, phlebotomists and occupational therapists. All had been employed within the NHS in excess of three years.

The focus groups interviews were facilitated by the study researchers. Each focus group involved between 4 and 10 interviewees, and lasted for around 60 minutes. The focus group interviews took the form of open discussion. The open discussions were steered utilising a topic guide with open-ended questions, and were recorded with permission and transcribed verbatim.

Data were analysed inductively. This approach involved a process of reading, re-reading and noting initial ideas, systematically coding themes across our data, collating these initial codes into potential themes, and reviewing and refining the potential themes. Extracts were then identified as exemplars of each theme.

NHS Research Ethics Service ethical approval was received from Wales REC 7 on March 27, 2018 (REC reference: 18/WA/0113). All interviewees were provided with written information regarding the study and their informed consent sought. Interviewee consent was obtained in writing.

Hospital Site A:

Hospital Site A is the largest hospital within the health board, and is going through increasing uncertainty and resource constraints. As part of wider health board restructuring plans, Hospital A, along with a second hospital, will lose services and be repurposed. A new hospital, combining both hospitals, is to be built at a new location.

The focus group interviews at Hospital Site A were notable for its commitment and focus to the patients staff serve; many of whom are older in age, from isolated rural villages and who speak the Welsh language as first language or sole language. This level of commitment to patients has, in a number of ways, established a shared vision for the site with staff members working together in making noticeable improvements to the healthcare environment and to ensure patients are cared for appropriately. This vision involves staff sharing knowledge and bridging cultures with teams across departments; often in challenging circumstances.

The strong culture and emotional commitment at Hospital Site A was tempered, however, by structural and political challenges. Within the past 18 months, there was the view that the hospital has experienced significant staffing shortages. Across the same period, there has been a renewed push within the organisation for continuous improvement. The resulting change in focus from management has increased the pace and rhythms of the hospital ward leaving staff feeling stretched and frustrated:

It’s hard with any initiative to keep going when you have the challenges of day to day staffing (on the ward).

In many ways, staff teams are feeling left behind within the organisation. While staff feel there is a largely positive safety culture across the organisation, their reality on the hospital ward is somewhat more mixed. The organisation has processes in place to share learning, such as reflection and sharing patient perceptions. Staff are actively involved in the process and there is a commitment to sustainable change throughout the organisation. However, frontline staff, feeling under resourced, are not engaged fully in the drive for continuous improvement and view it as a management activity that is being externally driven, in increasingly difficult circumstances. Policies and procedures around infection prevention are in place and while records are kept, poor communication means they are not effectively utilised. As one person put it to us:

I think the organisation has everything in place … It wants to improve … But this doesn’t always filter through to our department.

Interviewees further spoke of a continuous turnover in casual nursing staff upsetting the localised culture and rhythms of the hospital ward:

(The wards) are running on agency staff. And agency staff work in different places … So you’re always going to need to, not re-educate, but like need to tell them what to do. We’re frantically trying to tell agency staff what to do. It’s hard to make any changes or move forward in any way. We are chasing our tails.

Thus in addition to the potential for less familiarity of the localised practices and procedures of the hospital ward, the use of casual nursing staff may further increase the workload of permanent staff who, as well as dealing with their existing workload, need to supervise and support agency nurses.

According to Thomson, individuals cannot be held accountable for actions and omissions done in ‘ignorance’, including ‘the formal and informal expectations of the individual’s official role’ [37]. However across both hospital sites, infection prevention standards that individuals should meet, whether of practice or conduct, were not always clear to them, that official standards were distorted by the structure and culture of localised practice, and that on occasions, competing perceptions of safe practice were being played out. As Giddens observes, formal guidance plays an ambivalent and unstable role as a source of standards for practice [38]. Of particular note concerned staff awareness of the relevant rules in that certain infection prevention policies changed too frequently and that there are too many specific protocols. Focus group interviewees reported that it was simply impossible to keep up to date partly due to cuts in training, e-learning, and time and capacity for regular team meetings. This includes domestic cleaning staff who reported that their induction training had been shortened in time, by a third. Moreover, in recent times, the Health Board has implemented a new colour coding patient isolation door signing system, for different forms of infection transmission precautions. These are:

Red Sign - Contact precautions and should be used for patients in contact isolation,

Blue Sign - Droplet / airborne precautions and should be used for patients in droplet / airborne isolation, and

Yellow Sign - Protective isolation and should be used for patients requiring protective isolation.

However, a number of staff we spoke with mentioned that they were either unaware of or confused by the new door signs:

Well, I didn’t know until the other day that there’s different ones. There’s some that are like blue. There’s red. I had no idea they meant different things. I just knew the patient was being isolated.

In part, this lack of awareness arises in that the colour coding system is being inconsistently implemented across the hospital:

I’ve never seen different colours. Not on our ward, at least. You see, this is how different places (wards) are doing things differently.

In summary, Hospital Site A embodies a mixed patient safety culture. We found an organisation that was engaged in promoting an enhanced patient safety culture by designing strategy and structure that guide safety processes. While the structural and political domains include both positive and negative elements, the hospital embodies a cohesive cultural vision that includes a strong commitment to patients and their safety. Nonetheless, there are some underlying structural and political tensions, including poor communication, which make commitment to change, continuous improvement and infection prevention practices associated with isolation precautions difficult.

Hospital Site B:

Hospital Site B serves a large, rural catchment area with particularly poor transport links. In recent times, its administration and future operation have been a subject of controversy with the hospital experiencing a substantial budget deficit and critical staffing shortage resulting in the temporary closure of beds. Focus group interviewees viewed these circumstances as a consequence of mismanagement and spoke of Hospital Site B in terms of being orphaned within the health board. This, in part, is due to the hospital being separated geographically from the other three DGHs within the health board; as well as political positionings.

In these circumstances, Hospital Site B is perhaps best characterised as being highly fragmented. The focus groups found significant structural issues including an absence of and mistrust in effective leadership, coupled to ever increasing time and resource pressures leading to work intensification; which are identified as being major barriers to the effective safe and appropriate care of patients and efficient infection prevention practices. The adverse nature of the structural and political context in which people at the hospital work has contributed to a cultural and emotional void; leaving staff feeling overwhelmed, depleted and demoralised. As one interviewee put it to us:

(W)e’re on this constant treadmill … (And) we’re being pushed down … No matter what it is (we’re) doing, (we) struggle.

And another:

(We’re) all working harder. That leads to more stress and yes, we probably make mistakes. That’s the culture (we’re) (working) in.

The structural and political context is best described as being entrenched. In recent times, staffing cuts have been made across the hospital, impacting all departments. With financial cuts, staffing shortages and increasing time pressures, the capacity to take on new initiatives, including training or education and e-learning, is limited. As one medical consultant mentioned:

Training (at this hospital) is a low priority. If I applied for any training, and if I put down £300, it will never get sanctioned.

This leaves staff with the feeling of being unsupported by management; that they are not trained effectively and are not able to keep up to date. This was further reflected in staff evaluations and what training there is available, is that required by government. Nevertheless, this has been further compromised. A phlebotomist who has worked at the hospital for fourteen years, puts it this way:

We can’t provide five or six days training to a new phlebotomist, anymore. Everything has to be done within two days ... Of course you’ve got all SOPs (Standard operating procedures), all procedures in place, but we haven’t got time and we haven’t got enough staff to give that equivalent training to people ... So infection prevention and patient safety are not as good as they once were. I don’t know how to put it in words.

In this way, infection prevention and patient safety in terms of governance does not always translate in to practice and the challenges in making clear what is expected of people falls beyond formal standards. What staff view themselves as being responsible for is shaped by both organisational context and localised cultural norms. Focus group interviewees habitually identified gaps between what they were supposed to do and available resources for achieving this; pointing towards staffing, time pressures, access to resources and advice, management and finances. Nursing staff spoke of frequently having to double-up their responsibilities with cleaning on the wards. Hotel services talked of their frustrations in not being able to clean effectively or deep clean as infection prevention policies state, through official means. This is due to increasing time pressures, financial constraints and its impact in terms of changes in equipment and the cleaning chemicals used, and of the ambiguity of management towards effective cleaning. This has escalated in recent times, without being resolved. Moreover, stretched staff do not always know where to access resources or advice. For example, one interviewee spoke of a needlestick injury that happened the previous day and of staff not knowing how the reporting of such incidents works in practice. It was thus unclear as to whether individual wards have practices in place that address such issues. The views expressed suggest that staff perceive the process of incident reporting as being controlled by another entity within the organisation rather than a process that is owned by their hospital ward. Among those interviewees who understood the practices involved in incident reporting, completing incident report forms was perceived as a time consuming activity that is challenging to fit into an already busy schedule. In these circumstances, staff face the dilemma of prioritising between filling in forms and caring for patients.

The focus groups confirmed the collective nature of healthcare to patient safety and infection prevention. However, on other occasions, a particular individual’s efforts are essential to preventing harm. At Hospital Site B, a staff nurse spoke of an occasion where a domestic member of staff noticed that a bed had not been cleaned to the expected standard of the hospital bed team. This followed the moving of a patient the previous evening. When the domestic member of staff queried this with the ward sister the following morning, it was identified through the paper bedding system that the bed had not been cleaned at all. In this way, the domestic staff member contributed to the prevailing conditions for patient and staff safety through observing the everyday cultural norms and standards domestic cleaning staff produce and reproduce, and through their behaviour and demonstration of their professional values.

In summary, Hospital Site B appears to have a decidedly negative context of patient safety culture: Lack of a cohesive culture and vision, coupled with a critical staffing shortage, lack of resources and emotional exhaustion contribute to this, engendering feelings of mistrust and misunderstanding between staff and senior management; each impacting on infection prevention and isolation practices. While staff struggle with focussing on effective infection prevention practice and the safe care of patients, this is not sufficient for Hospital Site B to overcome structural, political cultural and educational challenges within the organisation; for the building of a positive patient safety culture. In many ways, staff at Hospital Site B are working against ever increasing barriers.

This study has found two DGHs positioned against the wider economic field of ever increasing uncertainty; where struggles around effective infection prevention practices and the safety of patients are played out on the hospital wards. The utilisation of focus group interviews has revealed themes that characterises the ways in which interviewees understand the work they perform and the broader economic and political context in which they perform that work. The focus groups expose interesting features of patient safety culture and infection prevention practice within hospital isolation settings and identify important structural, political, cultural, emotional and educational challenges at each hospital site.

In a number of ways, Hospital Site A and Hospital Site B are very different places in regard to the levels of maturity of patient safety culture. Positioned against economic restructuring and wider structural and political challenges, Hospital Site A has a largely positive cultural and emotional context. That is, the hospital has a largely unified culture focused on patient care and an engaged organisation offering effective support and strong relationships; that appears especially conducive for building a mature patient safety culture. The strong emotional commitment to patients has, in a number of ways, established a shared vision for the site with staff members working together in making noticeable improvements to the healthcare environment and to ensure patients are cared for safely and appropriately. This vision involves staff sharing knowledge and bridging cultures with teams across departments; often in challenging circumstances.

The mantle of economic uncertainty appears to be being felt most acutely at Hospital Site B, with the uncertainties of restructuring impacting on patient safety. At this hospital, focus group interviewees continually returned to cuts in staffing and spoke in terms of the safety of patients being at a ‘very high risk’. As one staff nurse told us, ‘(W)e are so low on the ground that jobs are not being done to the standard they should be. We are falling short’. That change is being implemented primarily in response to external economic forces, appears typical for the hospital. Hospital Site B can, in many ways, be described as having a broken structural, political, educational, emotional and cultural context. At Hospital Site B, our study identified a culture of critical staffing shortages, lack of time and resources, work intensification, a weak cultural identity, poor learning resources supporting healthcare improvement and a lack of effective organisational leadership meaning a near breakdown of relationships between staff and senior management; that appear especially challenging for the development of a mature culture of patient safety.

Habitus is a product of history; a set of values internalised by actors in processes of socialisation, where an individual’s life experiences solidify thoughts and actions into ‘durable dispositions’ that guide their future behaviours [39]. It offers a means of framing the world or ‘field’ of patient safety. From our focus group interviewees, the collective nature of healthcare and the extent to which effective infection prevention practices and the culture of patient safety depends on the utilisation of social capital from many hands, became increasingly clear. For patients to remain safe, multiple interacting networks of valued relations at ward level and across departments need to go right. In spite of the increasing challenges found at both hospital sites and especially at Hospital Site B, there appears a strong cultural and emotional engagement of staff in what they view collectively as being fundamental to the work they perform. Time and again the people we spoke with returned to the shared values they viewed as being crucial to healthcare; of honesty and compassion in nursing, of the protection of dignity and respect toward patients and the safe care of patients, of competency in forming professional relationships with members of staff across grades and departments, of autonomy in making decisions, and of good hygiene and cleanliness procedures. Determining a preferred course of action in healthcare requires an individual to employ legitimated knowledge, understanding and commitment, and staff repeatedly spoke of drawing on these in their practice. In many instances and at Hospital Site B in particular, simply learning and playing by the rules while putting procedures into effect is insufficient. In these circumstances, it is through valued collaborative efforts of staff and informal initiatives outside of the rules that appropriate and effective safe care is delivered to patients; most often in varying and difficult conditions. These initiatives, shaped by experience, are drawn from taken for granted understandings and legitimated knowledge within their own occupational identity, and which they can control. That is from this group of workers whose habitus coheres with the rhythms and regularities of healthcare. Importantly, this includes the low status dirty work performed by largely invisible hospital cleaning domestic staff. Thus regardless of the logics of the wider economic field and conditions of uncertainty in which they work, keeping things safe for patients is critical to nursing staff and other healthcare workers. In these circumstances, hope lies in these people returning to the shared values they view as being critical to healthcare. As one interviewee put it to us, ‘(T)he patient comes first. We do our best. There is nothing else we can do at the moment. We simply need more staff’.

Knowledge, awareness and understanding of infection prevention and patient safety culture within hospital isolation settings is crucial to promoting and delivering safe, appropriate and effective care to patients within the NHS. In theorising and positioning patient safety as a space of social struggle, this paper illustrates the complexities of patient safety culture. The engagement of nursing staff and other healthcare workers with infection prevention and patient safety initiatives, procedures and practices takes place in complex hospital environments and in circumstances where time and resources are most often stretched. Where work of one form is relentlessly squeezed by other demands.

This study confirms the collective nature of healthcare to patient safety and infection prevention, as well as emphasising the individual efforts of those people working within nursing and wider healthcare in preventing harm. Positioned within a context of healthcare restructuring, both hospital sites are at very different places in regard to levels of patient safety culture maturity. Hospital site A has a largely positive cultural and emotional context. The mantle of uncertainty appears to be impacting most acutely at Hospital Site B, with the uncertainties of the restructuring process impacting on the safety of patients. The largely broken structural, political, emotional, educational and cultural context identified at Hospital Site B, appears especially challenging for the development of a mature patient safety culture.

The value of Bourdieu’s insights to infection prevention and patient safety culture lie in their focus on everyday practice. Bourdieu’s notions of field, capital and habitus reveal the taken for granted intricacies of the work nursing staff and other healthcare workers perform and position them within the wider economic field. Bourdieu offers a means of capturing the less visible aspects of healthcare. Understanding the habitus of this group of people may make it easier to design effective interventions where complex issues such as patient safety culture and infection prevention are involved.

NHS: National Health Service

HIE: Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy

PPE: Personal protective equipment

HCAI: Healthcare-associated infection

TBP: Transmission-based precaution

DGH: District General Hospital

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

NHS Research Ethics Service ethical approval was received from Wales REC 7 on March 27, 2018 (REC reference: 18/WA/0113). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, and in line with the declaration of Helsinki and the approved protocol. All interviewees were provided with written information regarding the study and their informed consent sought. Interviewee consent was obtained in writing.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets used and / or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing Interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Funding

The authors disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article: This work was supported by the Infection Prevention Society [Collaborative Small Projects Grant 2017].

Authors’ Contributions

JH, SM, JG, SD and SW conceptualised the study. JH and SW designed the research methods. JH, SR and SW conducted the focus group interviews. JH and SR analysed the data. JH oversaw the theoretical positioning of the paper. JH, JG and SR wrote the original draft and JH wrote the revised versions. All authors reviewed, offered comments and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all those who offered their time and thoughts in participating in this study. We also want to thank those who helped in recruiting participants and who facilitated the focus group interviews by providing an interview room.

Kennedy I. Learning from Bristol. London: TSO. 2001.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Review of Maternity Services at Cwm Taf Health Board. London: RCOG. 2019.
Ockenden D. Findings, Conclusions and Essential Actions from the Independent Review of Maternity Services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. London: TSO. 2022.
Ockenden D. Emerging findings and recommendations from the Independent Review of Maternity Services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. London: TSO. 2020.
Kirkup B. The Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation. London: TSO. 2015.
Dodds A, Kodate, N. Accountability, organisational learning and risks to patient safety in England: Conflict or compromise? Health Risk Soc. 2011;13(4):327–46.
NHS Improvement. The NHS Patient Safety Strategy: Safer culture, safer systems, safer patients. London: NHS Improvement. 2019.
NHS Improvement. Our Approach to Patient Safety: NHS Improvement’s focus in 2017/18. London: NHS Improvement. 2017.
Department of Health. An organisation with a memory. London: TSO. 2000.
Institute of Medicine. To err is human. Washington: IoM. 1999.
World Health Organization (WHO). Patient Safety: Making health care safer. Geneva: WHO. 2017.
Carroll JS, Edmondson AC. Leading organisational learning in health care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2002;11:51–56.
Francis R. Report of the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Enquiry. London: TSO. 2013.
Department of Health. National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England: A promise to learn - A commitment to act. London: TSO. 2013.
Leape LL, Berwick DM. Safe health care: are we up to it? BMJ. 2000;320:725–726.
Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman EJ, Hewett D, Prior S, Strange P, et al. How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: Clinical risk management unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol. BMJ. 2000;320:777–781.
Clarke S. Perceptions of organisational safety: Implications for the development of safety culture. J Organ Behav. 1999;20:185–198.
Care Quality Commission (CQC). How CQC regulates: NHS and independent acute hospitals. Appendices to the provider handbook. London: CQC. 2015.
Bourdieu P. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977.
Bourdieu P. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Gammon J, Hunt J. Source isolation and patient wellbeing in healthcare settings. Br J Nurs. 2018a;28(2):88–91.
Gammon J, Hunt J. A review of isolation practices and procedures in healthcare settings. Br J Nurs. 2018b;27(3):137–140.
Gammon J, Hunt J, Musselwhite C. The Stigmatisation of Source Isolation: A Literature Review. J Res Nurs. 2019;24(8):677–693.
Bourdieu P, Wacquant, LJD. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1992.
Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: JG Richardson (ed) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press. 1986.
Grenfell M. Pierre Bourdieu: Agent Provocateur. London: Continuum. 2004.
Bourdieu P. In Other Words. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1994.
Bourdieu P. Practical Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1998.
Bourdieu P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1984.
Travaglia JF, Braithwaite J. Analysing the ‘field’ of patient safety employing Bourdieusian technologies. J Health Organ Manag. 2009;23(6):597–609.
Travaglia JF. Disturbing the Doxa of Patient Safety. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(9):867–869.
DiCuccio MH. The Relationship Between Patient Safety Culture and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J Patient Saf. 2015; 11(3):135–142.
Meddings J, Reichert H, Greene MT, Safdar N, Krein SL, Olmsted RN, et al. Evaluation of the association between Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) measures and catheter-associated infections: Results of two national collaboratives. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017; 26(3):226–235.
Najjar S, Nafouri N, Vanhaecht K, Euwema M. The relationship between patient safety culture and adverse events: A study in Palestinian hospitals. Saf Health. 2015; 1(16).
Krueger RA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage. Second edition. 2015.
Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, US: Sage. Fourth edition. 2015.
Thompson DF. Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. The American Political Science Review. 1980; 74940:905–916.
Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1984.
Bourdieu P. Sociology in Question. London: Sage. 1993.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
20 Jul, 2022
Reviews received at journal
15 Jul, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
07 Jul, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
06 Jul, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
06 Jul, 2022
Editor invited by journal
05 Jul, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
05 Jul, 2022
First submitted to journal
07 Jun, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Patient Safety Culture As Spaces Of Social Struggle: Understanding patient safety culture within hospital isolation settings. A Qualitative Study.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Research Design And Methods

Results / Main Findings

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1