Today, a key dichotomy is observed that includes cultures of safety and cultures of blame. In the first case, leaders and decision-makers take effective measures that promote healthy workplace relations, in which each member of the team is to feel safe and confident (Kaplan et al., 2017). Cultures of blame reflect an opposite approach to workplace relationships. In them, the blame is explicitly emphasized and viewed in direct association with the personality of the team member. Their errors are highlighted to their colleagues, prompting conflicts and anxiety. I have a teamwork experience at Palmeto General Hospital in Miami, Florida. Based on the aforementioned characteristics, I would define its work environment as one in a state of transition to a culture of safety with residual blame elements. The official policy of the institution promotes the basic principles of the safety paradigm, supporting the emotional comfort of all employees. However, older team members retain the old habits of criticizing their colleagues for mistakes in an explicit and personalized manner. The clash of these approaches creates a strong confusion among younger nurses, but the inclination toward a safety culture is undeniable.
In cultures of safety, anonymous reporting prevails, as suggested by practical experience. This way, the names and positions of neither the reporter nor the employee who committed this mistake are divulged. Such an approach yields a range of benefits for the atmosphere within the team. First of all, it does not allow a single, non-crucial error to compromise the integrity and reputation of a medical professional. To err is human, yet minor mistakes often create an unfavorable image in the eyes of colleagues. Second, anonymity eliminates the crucial barriers to error reporting outlined by Rutledge et al. (2018). According to them, medical practitioners often fail to report even serious mistakes because of “labelled fear, cultural barriers, lack of knowledge/feedback, and practical/utility barriers” (Rutledge et al., 2018, p. 1941). Anonymous reporting is an effective instrument against the labeled fear and unwillingness to have the relationship with a colleague deteriorate. On the other hand, anonymity may remove a sense of inevitable consequences for those who make these mistakes. If they know their reputation within the team is not on the line, they may fail to learn the lesson.
Nevertheless, the absence of explicit reproach in front of colleagues does not imply a lack of accountability. In this context, complete anonymity cannot be attained, as the information is still reported to supervisors. The management of the institution is aware of the wrong actions, in any case, meaning that adequate sanctions can be applied. The key difference is that the errors are not made known to the rest of the team, preventing the deterioration of the person’s reputation among peers. Evidently, this fact may instill a false sense of non-accountability among those who value their public image over professional growth. In this case, the rebuttal and punishment by the supervisor are perceived as a nuisance rather than serious consequences. However, true professionals who understand the importance of their work will show a different attitude. For them, the very fact of a registered mistake is an issue that needs to be addressed. Thus, the feeling of self-directed dissatisfaction may become the most serious punishment. After all, accountability is present in cultures of safety to the same extent, but its perception remains a matter of a specific employee’s professionalism.
References
Kaplan, G. S., Gandhi, T. K., Bowen, D. J., & Stokes, C. D. (2017). Partnering to lead a culture of safety. Journal of Healthcare Management, 62(4), 234–237. Web.
Rutledge, D. N., Retrosi, T., & Ostrowsky, G. (2018). Barriers to medication error reporting among hospital nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(9-10), 1941–1949. Web.