The aim of this review was to uncover what motivates preregistration nursing students to speak up for patient safety during work integrated learning (WIL) and to develop an evidence-based safety motivation framework for use by educators, clinicians, and preregistration nursing students.
This study used an integrative literature review design guided by Whittemore and Knafl\'s methodological framework.
Five research databases, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched for relevant peer reviewed research literature published in English between January 2011 and January 2024. The use of MeSH terms \"undergraduate nursing student,\" or \"preregistration nursing student\" and \"speaking up,\" \"patient safety,\" and \"motivation,\" resulted in 489 search returns. Following application of filters and inclusion criteria fifty-four (n = 54) studies were identified as being relevant to the research aim.
The fifty-four (n = 54) research studies were reviewed using the JBI Critical Appraisal tool relevant to the study methodology. The JBI critical appraisal tools are checklists used to determine research quality, validity, results, and meaning. Following appraisal, 27 studies were included in the integrative literature review.
Authentic learning, view of self as a nurse, and positive work integrated learning experiences were found to be the primary motivators for preregistration nursing students to speak up for patient safety during work integrated learning. These three motivators provided the foundation for an evidence-based framework, underpinned by self-determination theory, that can be used to enhance preregistration nursing students\' motivation to speak up for patient safety.
The integrative review design enabled the development of the evidence-based Safety Motivation Framework to support preregistration nursing students\' during work integrated learning however missing from the literature was information about the lived experience of this group of students when speaking up for patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviours between healthcare workers are highly prevalent. Evaluations of large-scale culture change programs are rare resulting in limited evidence of intervention effectiveness. We conducted a multi-method evaluation of a professional accountability and culture change program \"Ethos\" implemented across eight Australian hospitals. The Ethos program incorporates training for staff in speaking-up; an online system for reporting co-worker behaviours; and a tiered accountability pathway, including peer-messengers who deliver feedback to staff for \'reflection\' or \'recognition\'. Here we report the final evaluation component which aimed to measure changes in the prevalence of unprofessional behaviours before and after Ethos.
METHODS: A survey of staff (clinical and non-clinical) experiences of 26 unprofessional behaviours across five hospitals at baseline before (2018) and 2.5-3 years after (2021/2022) Ethos implementation. Five of the 26 behaviours were classified as \'extreme\' (e.g., assault) and 21 as incivility/bullying (e.g., being spoken to rudely). Our analysis assessed changes in four dimensions: work-related bullying; person-related bullying; physical bullying and sexual harassment. Change in experience of incivility/bullying was compared using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Change in extreme behaviours was assessed using multivariable binary logistic regression. All models were adjusted for respondent characteristics.
RESULTS: In total, 3975 surveys were completed. Staff reporting frequent incivility/bullying significantly declined from 41.7% (n = 1064; 95% CI 39.7,43.9) at baseline to 35.5% (n = 505; 95% CI 32.8,38.3; χ2(1) = 14.3; P < 0.001) post-Ethos. The odds of experiencing incivility/bullying declined by 24% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.66,0.87; P < 0.001) and odds of experiencing extreme behaviours by 32% (aOR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54,0.85; P < 0.001) following Ethos. All four dimensions showed a reduction of 32-41% in prevalence post-Ethos. Non-clinical staff reported the greatest decrease in their experience of unprofessional behaviour (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.29, 0.61). Staff attitudes and reported skills to speak-up were significantly more positive at follow-up. Awareness of the program was high (82.1%; 95% CI 80.0, 84.0%); 33% of respondents had sent or received an Ethos message.
CONCLUSIONS: The Ethos program was associated with significant reductions in the prevalence of reported unprofessional behaviours and improved capacity of hospital staff to speak-up. These results add to evidence that staff will actively engage with a system that supports informal feedback to co-workers about their behaviours and is facilitated by trained peer messengers.

BACKGROUND: Although speaking up is lauded as a critical patient safety strategy, it remains exceptionally challenging for team members to enact. Existing efforts to address the problem of silence among interprofessional teams involve training low-authority members to use direct language and unambiguous challenge scripts. The role or value of indirect communication in preventing medical error remains largely unexplored despite its pervasiveness among interprofessional teams. This study explores the role of indirect challenges in the face of medical error and professionalism lapses.
METHODS: Obstetricians at one academic center participated in an interprofessional simulation as a partial actor. Thirteen iterations were completed with 39 participants (13 obstetrician consultants, 11 obstetric residents, 2 family medicine consultants, 5 midwives, and 8 obstetrical nurses). Thirty participants completed a subsequent semi-structured interview. Five challenge moments were scripted for the obstetrician involving deliberate clinical judgment errors or professionalism infractions. Other participants were unaware of the obstetrician\'s partial actor role. Scenarios were videotaped; debriefs and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a constructivist qualitative approach.
RESULTS: Low-authority team members primarily relied on indirect challenge scripts to promote patient safety during simulation. Faculty participants were highly receptive to indirect challenges from low-authority team members, particularly in front of awake patients. In the context of obstetric care, direct challenges were actually viewed by participants as threatening to patient trust and disruptive to the interprofessional team. Instead of exclusively focusing our efforts on encouraging low-authority team members to speak up through direct challenges, it may be fruitful to expand our attention toward teaching faculty to identify, listen for, and respond to the indirect, subtle challenges that are already prolific among interprofessional teams.

The history of inquiries into the failings of medical care have highlighted the critical role of communication and information sharing, meaning that speaking up and employee silence have been extensively researched. However, the accumulated evidence concerning speaking-up interventions in healthcare indicates that they achieve disappointing outcomes because of a professional and organizational culture which is not supportive. Therefore, there is a gap with regard to our understanding of employee voice and silence in healthcare, and the relationship between withholding information and healthcare outcomes (e.g., patient safety, quality of care, worker wellbeing) is complex and differentiated. The following integrative review is aimed at addressing the following questions; (1) How is voice and silence conceptualized and measured in healthcare?; and (2) What is the theoretical background to employee voice and silence?. An integrative systematic literature review of quantitative studies measuring either employee voice or employee silence among healthcare staff published in peer-reviewed journals during 2016-2022 was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar. A narrative synthesis was performed. A review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO register (CRD42022367138). Of the 209 initially identified studies for full-text screening, 76 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the final review (N = 122,009, 69.3% female). The results of the review indicated the following: (1) concepts and measures are heterogenous, (2) there is no unifying theoretical background, and (3) there is a need for further research regarding the distinction between what drives safety voice versus general employee voice, and how both voice and silence can operate in parallel in healthcare. Limitations discussed include high reliance on self-reported data from cross-sectional studies as well as the majority of participants being nurses and female staff. Overall, the reviewed research does not provide sufficient evidence on the links between theory, research and implications for practice, thus limiting how research in the field can better inform practical implications for the healthcare sector. Ultimately, the review highlights a clear need to improve assessment approaches for voice and silence in healthcare, although the best approach to do so cannot yet be established.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was three-fold: to (1) synthesize evidence from experimental studies regarding educational interventions for developing nursing students\' and nurses\' assertiveness, (2) examine such interventions and identify their effective components, and (3) recommend future research considerations in this area.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature.
METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) in addition to hand searches to identify original research articles published between 2012 and 2022.
METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed for the systematic review and reporting process. Included studies were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in this review, with most of the studies conducted in Asian countries. Four intervention methods were used for assertiveness education across the studies: (1) simulation-based learning, (2) classroom-based learning, (3) classroom-based learning with peer support, and (4) hybrid learning. Classroom-based learning interventions were the most common. Among all types of interventions, key concepts included assertiveness, differentiating between assertive and non-assertive behaviors, and assertive communication skills. Most studies measured participants\' speaking-up behaviors by self-report. Mixed results were observed in terms of intervention effectiveness, but providing participants with opportunities to practice assertive communication skills benefited their speaking-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions can strengthen the skills, confidence, and capacity of current and future nurses to employ assertive communication. Intervention developers should create programs that involve classroom teaching and provide participants with opportunities for practice, either through simulation or role-play. Also, researchers should observe participants\' post-intervention use of assertive communication in simulations or clinical practice as opposed to surveying participants\' intention to speak up.

OBJECTIVE: Employees \'speaking-up\', or raising concerns about unsafe practices, has gained traction across healthcare, however, the topic has not been widely discussed within radiography generally or within resource-constrained healthcare settings. A systematic scoping narrative review identified the experiences of radiographers in speaking-up about safety concerns, which was extended to healthcare professionals more broadly. The scope of the review was further extended to cover speaking-up in non-healthcare resource-constrained settings in Africa.
RESULTS: Sixty-three studies were included in the review. The majority originated from westernised and/or higher resource health systems, with a dearth of literature from Africa and other resource-constrained settings. Several studies identified barriers and enablers confronting healthcare workers wishing to speak-up. While \'speaking-up\' as a concept has gained international interest, most studies are, however, focussed on nursing and medical practice contexts, overlooking other healthcare professions, including radiography. The findings are synthesised into a series of key lessons for healthcare and radiography practitioners in Ghana and other resource-constrained settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The topic has been largely overlooked by policy makers, both within healthcare generally and specifically within radiography in Ghana. This is particularly concerning given the many complexities and risks inherent to radiography. A radiography and a healthcare workforce lacking in voice is poorly positioned to improve workers\' safety and patient safety. More generally, promoting speaking up could enhance Ghana\'s ambitions to deliver a high-quality health care system and Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: National and regional policy makers need to implement speaking-up processes and procedures reflecting the lessons of the literature review, such as ensuring no detriment as result of speaking-up and making staff feel that their concerns are not futile. Speaking-up processes should be implemented by individual organisations, alongside staff training and monitoring.

Healthcare systems worldwide increasingly value the contribution of employee voice in ensuring the quality of patient care. Although employees\' concerns are often dealt with satisfactorily, considerable evidence suggests that some employees may feel unable to speak-up, and even when they do their concerns may be ignored. As a result, in addition to trans-national and national policies, workplace interventions that support employees to speak-up about their concerns have recently increased.
A systematic narrative review, informed by complex systems perspectives addresses the question: \"What workplace strategies and/or interventions have been implemented to promote speaking-up by employees\"?
Thirty-four studies were included in the review. Most studies reported inconclusive results. Researchers explanations for the successful implementation, or otherwise, of speak-up interventions were synthesised into two narrative themes (Braithwaite et al., 2018 (a)) hierarchical, interdisciplinary and cultural relationships and (Francis, 2015 (b)) psychological safety.
We strengthen the existing evidence base by providing an in-depth critique of the complex system factors influencing the implementation of speak-up interventions within the healthcare workforce. Although many of the studies were locally unique, there were international similarities in workplace cultures and norms that created contexts inimical to speaking-up interventions. Changing communication behaviours and creating a climate that supports speaking-up is immensely challenging. Interventions can be usurped in practice by complex, emergent and contextual issues, such as pre-existing socio-cultural relationships and workplace hierarchies.

The benefits of internal whistleblowing or speaking-up in the healthcare sector are significant. The a priori assumption that employee whistleblowing is always beneficial is, however, rarely examined. While recent research has begun to consider how the complex nature of healthcare institutions impact speaking-up rates, few have investigated the institutional processes and factors that facilitate or retard the benefits of speaking up. Here we consider how the efficacy of formal inquiries within organisations in response to employees\' speaking up about their concerns affects the utility of internal whistleblowing.
Using computational models, we consider how best to improve patient care through internal whistleblowing when resource and practical limitations constrain healthcare operation. We analyse the ramifications of varying organisational responses to employee concerns, given organisational and practical limitations.
Drawing on evidence from international research, we test the utility of whistleblowing policies in a variety of organisational settings. This includes institutions where whistleblowing inquiries are handled with varying rates of efficiency and accuracy.
We find organisational inefficiencies can negatively impact the benefits of speaking up about bad patient care. We find that, given resource limitations and review inefficiencies, it can actually improve patient care if whistleblowing rates are limited. However, we demonstrate that including softer mechanisms for internal adjustment of healthcare practice (eg, peer to peer conversation) alongside whistleblowing policy can overcome these organisational limitations.
Healthcare organisations internationally have a variable record of responding to employees who speak up about their workplace concerns. Where organisations get this wrong, the consequences can be serious for patient care and staff well-being. The results of this study, therefore, have implications for researchers, policy makers and healthcare organisations internationally. We conclude with a call for further research on a more holistic understanding of the interplay between organisational structure and the benefits of whistleblowing to patient care.

BACKGROUND: Open and direct communication (\"speaking-up\") about errors, bypassed safety rules and risky behaviours among hospital staff is required to avoid patient harm, and it is an essential characteristic of an established safety culture. In German-speaking countries, little is known about speaking-up behaviour among health care professionals (HCPs) in hospitals.
METHODS: Safety concerns and speaking-up behaviours among HCPs of nine oncological units of eight hospitals were assessed using a self-administered survey. A vignette was embedded to assess hypothetical speaking-up and its predictors. The association of hierarchical position and speaking-up was investigated. 1,013 physicians and nurses completed the survey (65 % response rate).
RESULTS: 53 % of the HCPs reported having concerns about patient safety at their unit, \"sometimes\", \"frequently\", or \"very frequently\". Colleagues bypassing important safety rules at least \"sometimes\" were reported by 30 %. A considerable fraction of responders reported episodes of withholding of voice. Nearly 20 % said they did not communicate safety problems at their unit at least sometimes. 73 % of higher-ranking staff and 60 % among those at lower ranks said they had never withheld information which could have reduced threats to patients (OR=1.8, p≤0.001). Many responders felt that speaking-up is often difficult and challenging. 32 % responded that they would not speak-up about a missed hand disinfection towards a colleague assessing the wound of a recently operated oncological patient.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs in hospital frequently experience safety concerns and often withhold them. An important resource for better patient safety is lost. The development of interventions to improve speaking-up culture is warranted.

In the healthcare context, whistleblowing has come to the fore of political, professional and public attention in the wake of major service scandals and mounting evidence of the routine threats to safety that patients face in their care. This paper offers a commentary and wider contextualisation of Mannion and Davies, \'Cultures of silence and cultures of voice: the role of whistleblowing in healthcare organisations.\' It argues that closer attention is needed to the way in which whistle-blowers can become the focus and victim of raising concerns and speaking up.