Open organisational culture: what does it entail? Healthcare stakeholders reaching consensus by means of a Delphi technique.

OBJECTIVES: Open organisational culture in hospitals is important, yet it remains unclear what it entails other than its referral to 'open communication' in the context of patient safety. This study aims to identify the elements of an open hospital culture. METHODS: In this group consensus study with a Delphi technique, statements were constructed based on the existing patient safety literature and input of 11 healthcare professionals from different backgrounds. A final framework consisting of 36 statements was reviewed on inclusion and exclusion, in multiple rounds by 32 experts and professionals working in healthcare. The feedback was analysed and shared with the panel after the group reached consensus on statements (>70% agreement). RESULTS: The procedure resulted in 37 statements representing tangible (ie, leadership, organisational structures and processes, communication systems, employee attitudes, training and development, and patient orientation) and intangible themes (ie, psychological safety, open communication, cohesion, power, blame and shame, morals and ethics, and support and trust). The culture themes' teamwork and commitment were not specific for an open culture, contradicting the patient safety literature. Thereby, an open mind was shown to be a novel characteristic. CONCLUSIONS: Open culture entails an open mind-set and attitude of professionals beyond the scope of patient safety in which there is mutual awareness of each other's (un)conscious biases, focus on team relationships and professional well-being and a transparent system with supervisors/leaders being role models and patients being involved. Although it is generally acknowledged that microlevel social processes necessary to enact patient safety deserve more attention, research has largely emphasised system-level structures and processes. This study provides practical enablers for addressing system and microlevel social processes to work towards an open culture in and across teams.

What do we really assess with organisational culture tools in healthcare? An interpretive systematic umbrella review of tools in healthcare.

INTRODUCTION: A toxic organisational culture (OC) is a major contributing factor to serious failings in healthcare delivery. Poor OC with its consequences of unprofessional behaviour, unsafe attitudes of professionals and its impact on patient care still need to be addressed. Although various tools have been developed to determine OC and improve patient safety, it remains a challenge to decide on the suitability of tools for uncovering the underlying factors which truly impact OC, such as behavioural norms, or the unwritten rules. A better understanding of the underlying dimensions that these tools do and do not unravel is required. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to provide an overview of existing tools to assess OC and the tangible and intangible OC dimensions these tools address. METHODS: An interpretive umbrella review was conducted. Literature reviews were considered for inclusion if they described multiple tools and their dimensional characteristics in the context of OC, organisational climate, patient safety culture or climate. OC tools and the underlying dimensions were extracted from the reviews. A qualitative data analysis software program (MAX.QDA 2007) was used for coding the dimensions, which resulted in tangible and intangible themes. RESULTS: Fifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria. A total of 127 tools were identified, which were mainly quantitative questionnaires covering tangible key dimensions. Qualitative analyses distinguished nine intangible themes (commitment, trust, psychological safety, power, support, communication openness, blame and shame, morals and valuing ethics, and cohesion) and seven tangible themes (leadership, communication system, teamwork, training and development, organisational structures and processes, employee and job attributes, and patient orientation). CONCLUSION: This umbrella review identifies the essential tangible and intangible themes of OC tools. OC tools in healthcare do not seem to be designed to determine deeper underlying dimensions of culture. We suggest approaching complex underlying OC problems by focusing on the intangible dimensions, rather than putting the tangible dimensions up front.

Do 'physicians in the lead' support a holistic healthcare delivery approach? A qualitative analysis of stakeholders' perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based healthcare implies that healthcare issues are addressed most effectively with the 'physicians in the lead' (PIL) strategy. This study explores whether PIL also supports a holistic care approach that patients are increasingly demanding. DESIGN: A qualitative research design was used. SETTING: This study was conducted in a general hospital in the Netherlands with an integrated PIL strategy. PARTICIPANTS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 14 hospital stakeholders: 13 stakeholders of an Obstetrics and Gynaecology department (the hospital's Patient Council (n=1), nurses (n=2), midwives (n=2), physicians (n=2), residents (n=2), the non-medical business managers of the Obstetrics and Gynaecology department (n=2) the Board of Directors (n=2)) and a member of the Dutch National Healthcare Institute's Innovative Healthcare Professions programme. RESULTS: According to diverse stakeholders, PIL does not support a holistic healthcare delivery approach, primarily because of the strong biomedical focus of the physicians. Although physicians can be educated to place more emphasis on the holistic outcome, holistic care delivery requires greater integration and teamwork in the care chain. As different healthcare professions are complementary to each other, a new strategy of a 'team in the lead' was suggested to meet the holistic healthcare demands. Besides this new strategy, there is a need for an extramural care management coordination centre where patients are able to receive support in managing their own care. This centre should also facilitate services similar to the core function of a church or community centre. These services should help patients to deal with different holistic dimensions that are important for their well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The PIL strategy appears to be insufficient for holistic healthcare delivery. A 'team in the lead' approach should be considered to meet the holistic healthcare demands. Further research should focus on observing PIL in different cultures and exploring the effectiveness of the strategy 'team in the lead'.