Advertisement

Disruptive behaviour in the operating room is under-reported: an international survey

  • Ian Fast
  • Alexander Villafranca
  • Bernadette Henrichs
  • Kirby Magid
  • Chris Christodoulou
  • Eric JacobsohnEmail author
Reports of Original Investigations

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reporting habits of clinicians who have been exposed to disruptive behaviour in the operating room (OR) and assess their satisfaction with management’s responses to this issue.

Methods

Ethics committee approval was obtained. This was a pre-specified sub-study of a larger survey examining disruptive behaviour, which was distributed to OR clinicians in seven countries. Using Likert-style questions, this study ascertained the proportion of disruptive intraoperative behaviour that clinicians reported to management, as well as their degree of satisfaction with management’s responses. Binomial logistic regression identified socio-demographic, exposure-related, and behavioural predictors that a clinician would never report disruptive behaviour.

Results

Four thousand, seven hundred and seventy-five respondents were part of the sub-study. Disruptive behaviour was under-reported by 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.9 to 97.0) of respondents, and never reported by 30.9% (95% CI, 29.6 to 32.2) of respondents. Only 21.0% (95% CI, 19.8 to 22.2) of respondents expressed satisfaction with management’s responses. Numerous socio-demographic, exposure-related, and behavioural predictors of reporting habits were identified. Socio-demographic groups who had higher odds of never reporting disruptive behaviour included younger clinicians, clinicians without management responsibilities, both anesthesiologists and surgeons (compared with nurses), biological females, and heterosexuals (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Disruptive behaviour was under-reported by nearly all clinicians surveyed, and only one in five were satisfied with management’s responses. For healthcare systems to meaningfully address the issue of disruptive behaviour, management must create reporting systems that clinicians will use. They must also respond in ways that clinicians can rely on to affect necessary change.

Les comportements perturbateurs en salle d’opération sont sous-rapportés : un sondage international

Résumé

Objectif

L’objectif de cette étude était d’examiner les pratiques de signalements des cliniciens exposés à des comportements perturbateurs en salle d’opération (SOP) et d’évaluer leur satisfaction vis-à-vis des réactions de la direction à ce problème.

Méthode

Nous avons obtenu le consentement du comité d’éthique. Il s’agissait d’une sous-étude pré-spécifiée d’un plus grand sondage portant sur les comportements perturbateurs, distribué aux cliniciens de SOP dans sept pays. À l’aide de questions de style Likert, cette étude a déterminé la proportion de comportements perturbateurs peropératoires rapportés par les cliniciens à la direction, ainsi que leur degré de satisfaction vis-à-vis de la réponse de la direction. Une régression logistique binomiale a permis d’identifier les prédicteurs sociodémographiques, ainsi que les prédicteurs liés à l’exposition et comportementaux indiquant qu’un clinicien ne rapporterait jamais un comportement perturbateur.

Résultats

Quatre mille sept cent soixante-quinze répondants ont été inclus dans cette sous-étude. Les comportements perturbateurs étaient sous-rapportés par 96,5 % (intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 95,9 à 97,0) des répondants, et jamais rapportés par 30,9 % (IC 95 %, 29,6 à 32,2) des répondants. Seuls 21,0 % (IC 95 %, 19,8 à 22,2) des répondants ont exprimé être satisfaits des réactions de la direction. De nombreux prédicteurs sociodémographiques, liés à l’exposition et comportementaux des habitudes de communication ont été identifiés. Les groupes sociodémographiques affichant une probabilité plus élevée de ne jamais rapporter les comportements perturbateurs comprenaient les cliniciens plus jeunes, les cliniciens sans responsabilités de direction, les anesthésiologistes et les chirurgiens (par rapport au personnel infirmier), les femmes biologiques et les hétérosexuels (tous P < 0,05).

Conclusion

Les comportements perturbateurs étaient sous-rapportés par la quasi-totalité des cliniciens interrogés, et seul un clinicien sur cinq s’estimait satisfait des réponses de la direction. Si les systèmes de soins de santé veulent véritablement régler le problème des comportements perturbateurs, les directions des établissements doivent créer des systèmes de communication des incidents qui seront utilisés par les cliniciens. Elles doivent également réagir de manière à ce que les cliniciens puissent avoir confiance que les changements nécessaires seront apportés.

Notes

Author contributions

Ian Fast contributed to all aspects of this study, including conception and design of the study; analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting of the manuscript. Alexander Villafranca contributed to all aspects of this study, including conception and design of the study; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and drafting of the manuscript. Bernadette Henrichs contributed to the conception and design of the study, acquisition of the data, and editing of the manuscript. Kirby Magid contributed to the interpretation of the data, data analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. Chris Christodoulou and Eric Jacobsohn contributed to the conception and design of the study, interpretation of the data, and drafting of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Academic Oversight Committee of the Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, MB, Canada) for providing financial support of this project. We also appreciate the help of the 23 organizations who distributed the survey and the time and effort of all respondents.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Funding statement

The Academic Oversight Committee of the Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, MB, Canada), Max Rady College of Medicine provided financial support for this project.

Editorial responsibility

This submission was handled by Dr. Philip M. Jones, Associate Editor, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

References

  1. 1.
    Villafranca A, Hamlin C, Enns S, Jacobsohn E. Disruptive behaviour in the perioperative setting: a contemporary review. Can J Anesth 2017; 64: 128-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Villafranca A, Fast I, Jacobsohn E. Disruptive behavior in the operating room: prevalence, consequences, prevention, and management. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2018; 31: 366-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M. Impact and implications of disruptive behavior in the perioperative arena. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203: 96-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Villafranca A, Hiebert B, Hamlin C, et al. Prevalence and predictors of exposure to disruptive behaviour in the operating room. Can J Anesth 2019; 66: 781-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pfifferling JH. The disruptive physician. A quality of professional life factor. Physician Exec 1999; 25: 56-61.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laschinger H, Grau AL, Finegan J, Wilk P. New graduate nurses’ experiences of bullying and burnout in hospital settings. J Adv Nurs 2010; 66: 2732-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quine L. Workplace bullying in nurses. J Heal Psychol 2001; 6: 73-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Joint Commission. Summary Data of Sentinel Events Reviewed by The Joint Commission. 2012. Available from URL: https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/2004_4Q_2012_SE_Stats_Summary.pdf (accessed August 2019)”
  9. 9.
    The Joint Commission. Sentinel Event Statistics Released for 2014. Available from URL: https://www.jointcommission.org/issues/article.aspx?Article=jjLkoItVZhkxEyGe4AT5NDyAZaTPkWXc50Ic3pERKGw%3D (accessed August 2019).
  10. 10.
    Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, et al. Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 678-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schaeffer MH. Environmental stress and individual decision-making: implications for the patient. Patient Educ Couns 1989; 13: 221-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arora S, Sevdalis N, Nestel D, Woloshynowych M, Darzi A, Kneebone R. The impact of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery 2010; 147(318–30): e6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Daniel M, Rosenstein AH. Disruptive behavior and clinical outcomes: perceptions of nurses and physicians. Am J Nurs 2005; 105: 54-64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pfifferling JH. Managing the unmanageable: the disruptive physician. Fam Pract Manag 1997; 4: 76-78, 83, 87-92.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berry PA, Gillespie GL, Gates D, Schafer Jl. Novice nurse productivity following workplace bullying. J Nurs Scholarsh 2012; 44: 80-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hogh A, Hoel H, Carneiro IG. Bullying and employee turnover among healthcare workers: a three-wave prospective study. J Nurs Manag 2011; 19: 742-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klaassen M, Kleiner B. New developments concerning negligent retention. Managerial Law 2001; 43: 62-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rao MB, Rao MM. Trust betrayed - depraved doctor or negligent hospital? IUP J Manag Res 2016; XV: 53-72.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Joint Commission. Behaviours That Undermine A Culture of Safety. Sentinel Event Alert 2008. Available from URL: https://www.jointcommission.org/sentinel_event_alert_issue_40_behaviors_that_undermine_a_culture_of_safety/ (accessed August 2019).
  20. 20.
    Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Lucian Leape Institute. Through the Eyes of the Workforce: creating joy, meaning, and safer health care. Boston, MA: National Patient Safety Foundation; 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    AORN. AORN Position Statement on a Healthy Perioperative Practice Environment 2015; 1-5. Available from URL: https://www.aorn.org/-/media/aorn/guidelines/position-statements/posstat-safety-healthy-practice.pdf (accessed August 2019).
  22. 22.
    Maddineshat M, Rosenstein AH, Akaberi A, Tabatabaeichehr M. Disruptive behaviours in an emergency department: the perspective of physicians and nurses. J Caring Sci 2016; 5: 241-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swafford L. Lateral Violence in the Emergency Department. Hunt School of Nursing. Nursing Theses and Capstone Projects 2014. Available from URL: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1867/b28ed05c8ab8effaa70827136043a2cebeb9.pdf (accessed August 2019).
  24. 24.
    Maddineshat M, Hashemi M, Tabatabaeichehr M. Evaluation of the disruptive behaviours among treatment teams and its reflection on the therapy process of patients in the operating room: the impact of personal conflicts. J Educ Health Promot 2017.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_47_16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walrath JM, Dang D, Nyberg D. An organizational assessment of disruptive clinician behavior findings and implications. J Nurs Care Qual 2013; 28: 110-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith J. Bullying in the Nursing Workplace: a Study of Perioperative Nurses. 2011. Available from URL: https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/907103858.html?FMT=ABS (accessed August 2019).
  27. 27.
    Vessey JA, Demarco RF, Gaffney D, et al. Bullying of staff registered nurses in the workplace: a preliminary study for developing personal and organizational strategies for the transformation of hostile to healthy workplace environments. J Prof Nurs 2009; 25: 299-306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenstein AH. Physician disruptive behaviors: five year progress report. World J Clin Cases 2015; 3: 930-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Institute for Safe Medical Practices. Intimidation: Mapping a Plan for Cultural Change in Healthcare (Part II). 2004. Available from URL: https://www.ismp.org/resources/intimidation-mapping-plan-cultural-change-healthcare-part-ii (accessed August 2019).
  30. 30.
    Institute for Safe Medical Practices. Intimidation: Practitioners Speak Up About This Unresolved Problem (Part I). 2004. Available from URL: https://www.ismp.org/resources/intimidation-practitioners-speak-about-unresolved-problem-part-i (accessed August 2019).
  31. 31.
    Villafranca A, Hamlin C, Rodebaugh TL, Robinson S, Jacobsohn E. Development of survey scales for measuring exposure and behavioral responses to disruptive intraoperative behavior. J Patient Saf 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000423.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin IF, Schaeffer NC. Using survey participants to estimate the impact of nonparticipation. Public Opin Q 1995; 59: 236-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lewis EF, Hardy M, Snaith B. Estimating the effect of nonresponse bias in a survey of hospital organizations. Eval Health Prof 2013; 36: 330-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chandler J, Shapiro D. Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2016; 12: 53-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Friedman HH, Amoo T. Rating the rating scales. J Mark Manag 1999; 9: 114-23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Fast
    • 1
  • Alexander Villafranca
    • 1
  • Bernadette Henrichs
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kirby Magid
    • 1
  • Chris Christodoulou
    • 1
  • Eric Jacobsohn
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative and Pain MedicineUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Goldfarb School of NursingBarnes Jewish CollegeSt. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Department of AnesthesiologyWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations