Jump to content
  • Article information
    • PUBLISHED
    • ORIGIN UK
    • TYPE Blogs
    • CONTENT TYPE New
    • SUGGESTED AUDIENCE Health and care staff, Patient safety leads
    TAGGED

    Summary

    ‘Neo’ is an Allied Health Professional working on the frontline and asks what being open and transparent actually means and whether publishing a report or an investigation is just another tick box exercise if lessons aren't learned.

    Content

    Health organisations regularly state that in the spirit of openness and transparency they put things in the public domain – if something has gone wrong they are open and transparent with patients, their relatives and/or carers, and they want staff to be open and transparent if they see things which are wrong, or if something happens unexpected.

    But what does being open and transparent mean?

    If we say an individual is transparent it has a negativity about it – they are see-through and potentially have ulterior motives. Sayings such as ‘hidden in plain sight’ or ‘a good day to bury bad news’ relate to information being shared, to organisations being open and transparent, but the information shared will rarely be seen or discussed.

    Publishing a report or an investigation without the rationale and context for its commission, or an action plan to address the findings, will tick the box in being open and transparent but misses the point. A report without these elements can be misinterpreted or used as a means for punishment or ridicule, which fundamentally undermines the very culture being pursued.

    Would it not be better to present a summary of the report, with the rationale for its commission and what actions are being taken in response, in order to present it constructively; so that these reviews are used to improve the culture and working environments rather than just sharing every detail inevitably to be dissected in the public domain?

    It’s not being secretive not sharing every detail. It takes a degree of skill to condense a large report into an understandable summary. It will mean that it is presented constructively, it is read and understood, and that the learning and ethos of the report isn’t lost.

    Simon Sinek sums it up nicely: "Transparency doesn’t mean sharing every detail, but means providing the context for the decisions we make".

    With this in mind, are we truly open and transparent or unintentionally being opaque in the decisions we make?

    Read more stories from staff on the frontline in our Florence in the Machine series.

    About the Author

    Neo, not a real name, wishes to remain anonymous.

    0 reactions so far

    1 Comment

    Recommended Comments

    spannaroo
    spannaroo 0
    Posted

    This is such an interesting topic. As a Patient Safety Advisor undertaking investigations and producing reports on the findings, we have been round and round with this issue in my organisation.  I find that the appetite to be fully transparent and share all details has been person dependent in my organisation, with key leadership positions determining whether or not reports should be shared based on their individual perspective. As an investigator i have also found my views on this issue evolving over the years.

    When we previously moved from providing the full report to a consumer through the open disclosure process, to producing a short summary instead, i was not happy and felt this was misleading, infantilising and did not reflect transparency and accountability. Since then i did receive some feedback from a consumer who was also a healthcare worker, who said that she really appreciated having just a short summary of the investigation findings. She felt that the full report would have been too overwhelming and would have placed a huge burden onto her to have all that detail and to be the person responsible for sharing the information with family members. This perspective gave me a fresh perspective on the value of a summary report.

    Since then we have moved into a more 'fluid' space (alongside another change in the key leadership role). we are now trialling a process where we do not routinely produce a summary to give to the consumer, but instead are focusing on better communication with the consumer throughout the investigation process with a view to tailoring the documentation they will be given through open disclosure according to their needs and wishes. i think this flexible approach will be positive from the consumer perspective, so long as we are able to listen and accommodate their needs. It is new territory for us though and may generate increased work for us investigators requiring us to produce tailored documents on a case by case basis... we will see.

    • 0 reactions so far

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    Related hub content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.