“Flag the Play”: Overcoming unseen barriers to speak up for safety
Abstract
Theresa Hollinger is the director of nursing and patient care services at Mercyhealth Hospital and Medical Center in Harvard, Ill. The author has disclosed no financial relationships related to this article.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The program included a 40-minute presentation on groupthink and provided tools for filing reports in an effort to "speak up for patient safety".
“The program included a 40-minute presentation on groupthink and provided tools for filing reports in an effort to “speak up for patient safety”.”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Hollinger, 2019
Hollinger described the effectiveness of a hospital program that encouraged the reporting of 'near-miss occurrences' by hospital staff.
“In the second quality improvement report, Hollinger described the effectiveness of a hospital program that encouraged the reporting of ‘near-miss occurrences’ by hospital staff.”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Hollinger, 2019
The effectiveness of the program was measured by the results of an annual culture of safety survey, which showed improved scores in the three years following the program.
“The effectiveness of the program was measured by the results of an annual culture of safety survey, which showed improved scores in the three years following the program.”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Hollinger, 2019
Two quality improvement reports were found in the search for empirical research, although these were not categorized as empirical studies.
“Of note, we found two quality improvement reports in our search for empirical research, although these were not categorized as empirical studies (Hollinger, 2019; Snelgrove et al., 2011).”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Hollinger, 2019
Cites
Context matters: groupthink and outcomes of health care teams
Madigosky, W., & van Schaik, S. (2016) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12989 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review
DiPierro, K., Lee, H., Pain, K. J., Durning, S. J., & Choi, J. J. (2022) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2021.1987404 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“Four articles suggested group exercises in feedback, such as instructing members to actively dissent in group discussions, scripting scenarios, and engaging in role play (Heinemann et al. 1994; Degnin 2009; Snelgrove et al. 2011; Hollinger 2019).”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Hollinger, T.
- Corresponding author
- Hollinger, Theresa
- Venue
- Nursing Management
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 7-9
- ISSN
- 0744-6314 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2965398100
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nursing Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Keywords
- flagging, patient safety, nursing leadership, quality of care, hospital nursing management
- MeSH terms
- Organizational Culture, Occupational Health, Patient Safety
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
