Purpose Voicing concerns and suggestions is crucial for preventing medical errors and improving patient safety. Research suggests that hierarchy in health-care teams impair open communication. Hierarchy, however, can vary with changing team composition, particularly during acute care situations where more senior persons join the team later on. The purpose of this study is to investigate how changes in hierarchy and leadership were associated with nurses’ voice frequency and nurses’ time to voice during simulated acute care situations. Design/methodology/approach This study’s sample consisted of 78 health-care providers (i.e. nurses, residents and consultants) who worked in 39 teams performing complex clinical scenarios in the context of interprofessional, simulation-based team training. Scenarios were videotaped and communication behaviour was coded using a systematic coding scheme. To test the hypotheses, multilevel regression analyses were conducted. Findings Hierarchy and leadership had no significant effect on nurses’ voice frequency. However, there were significant relationships between nurses’ time to voice and both hierarchy (γ = 30.00, p = 0.002; 95 per cent confidence interval [CI] = 12.43; 47.92) as well as leadership (γ = 0.30, p = 0.001; 95 per cent CI = 0.12; 0.47). These findings indicate that when more physicians are present and leadership is more centralised, more time passes until the first nurses’ voice occurred. Originality/value This study specifies previous findings on the relationships between hierarchy, leadership and nurses’ voice. Our findings suggest that stronger hierarchy and more centralised leadership delay nurses’ voice but do not affect the overall frequency of voice.

No abstract

Team communication is considered a key factor for team performance. Importantly, voicing concerns and suggestions regarding work-related topics-also termed speaking up-represents an essential part of team communication. Particularly in action teams in high-reliability organizations such as healthcare, military, or aviation, voice is crucial for error prevention. Although research on voice has become more important recently, there are inconsistencies in the literature. This includes methodological issues, such as how voice should be measured in different team contexts, and conceptual issues, such as uncertainty regarding the role of the voice recipient. We tried to address these issues of voice research in action teams in the current literature review. We identified 26 quantitative empirical studies that measured voice as a distinct construct. Results showed that only two-thirds of the articles provided a definition for voice. Voice was assessed via behavioral observation or via self-report. Behavioral observation includes two main approaches (i.e., event-focused and language-focused) that are methodologically consistent. In contrast, studies using self-reports showed significant methodological inconsistencies regarding measurement instruments (i.e., self-constructed single items versus validated scales). The contents of instruments that assessed voice via self-report varied considerably. The recipient of voice was poorly operationalized (i.e., discrepancy between definitions and measurements). In sum, our findings provide a comprehensive overview of how voice is treated in action teams. There seems to be no common understanding of what constitutes voice in action teams, which is associated with several conceptual as well as methodological issues. This suggests that a stronger consensus is needed to improve validity and comparability of research findings.

No abstract