PORTFOLIO-Senitnel Event Paper Final

Running head: INCIVILITY IN NURSING

Making Changes to Stop Incivility in Nursing

XXXXXXXX (with permission)

Kaylee Blankenship, LeAnna Ceglia, Maggie Fabry, and Noel Silveira

California State University, Stanislaus

May 12th, 2014

1

INCIVILITY IN NURSING

Making Changes to Stop Incivility in Nursing

Mason Michael discovered from a high school lab assignment that his AB Blood Type

was incompatible with his Type A parents. Genetic testing expeditiously confirmed that he was

not the biological son of Megan and Matthew Michael. How did this nightmare happen? How

had his family lived with a stranger for 15 years? A revelation would soon prove that Mason

Michael was switched at birth in the midst of a sentinel event at St. Petersburg Medical Center in

Merced, CA. It would further prove that the undermining of the culture of safety and

involvement in workplace lateral violence by nursing staff leads to errors and mix-ups. These

glitches result in sentinel events and need to be addressed and corrected by hospitals under the

guidance of The Joint Commission.

Sentinel Event

A sentinel event is any type of unforeseen event resulting in the demise of, or large-scale

perpetual loss-of-function for a patient that is unrelated to their anticipated course of illness

(“Joint Commission’s,” 1998). A specific type of sentinel event, the one that will be considered

in this case, is the discharge of an infant to the wrong family. Although this experience did not

result in the death of the child or a loss of function, a serious error like this has numerous

ramifications, and The Joint Commission considers it a reviewable adverse outcome (“Joint

Commission’s,” 1998). As this paper will later explain, the presence of intimidating and

disruptive behaviors in the workplace have played a large role in this sentinel event, and also

contributes to many adverse outcomes in the hospital setting.

The term sentinel event is used because these events serve as warnings and alerts that are

issued by The Joint Commission (“Joint Commission’s,” 1998). The Joint Commission

encourages, but does not require, organizations to report sentinel events due to the many benefits

2


of doing so. These benefits include: support and expertise from The Joint Commission, the

opportunity to collaborate with a patient safety expert, the promotion of a culture of safety within

the organization, and a more positive outlook from the community (The Joint Commission,

2014). All reported events are investigated by The Joint Commission with the aim of improving

patient care, treatment, and services. The goal is to prevent future occurrences and to focus

attention on understanding the causes of the event. The Joint Commission also focuses on

changing systems and processes to reduce the likelihood of future occurrences (“Joint

Commission’s,” 1998).

Sentinel events have a large range of causes. In the case of 15-year-old Mason Michael,

incivility played a major role (McNamara, 2012). Incivility, in nursing, consists of a lack of

regard for others, violation of workplace norms, disrespectful interpersonal communication, and

disruptive behaviors that hinder positive patient outcomes. When nurses fail to foster a culture of

safety, disastrous consequences can result (McNamara, 2012). This is exactly what happened

when Nurse Janet sent baby Mason Michael home with two, complete strangers.

Incivility and the Culture of Safety

Matthew and Megan Michael flew off the elevator like a bolt of lightning and scrambled

through the doors of the birthing center at St. Petersburg Medical Center. They had been waiting,

for what seemed like an eternity, for this day to come. Upon arrival, a friendly nurse with a

bright smile greeted the couple. Her name was Nurse Janet, and she would help them through the

most magical moment of their lives-the delivery of their first child.

Nurse Janet completed Megan’s intake interview, did her preliminary assessment, helped

her into a gown, and got her comfortably placed on the monitors. Megan was dilated to four

centimeters and labor was progressing as smoothly as one could hope. Three hours later, an

3


angelic baby boy with big blue eyes made his way into the arms of the delivering physician, Dr.

Rocha. He was perfectly healthy and ready to be placed into the welcoming arms of his mother.

The two bonded for several hours before Mason was taken to the nursery for a procedural check-

up by the unit pediatricians. Little did Matthew and Megan know, baby Mason would never

return.

The nursery was not unusually busy that day. Unfortunately, however, two nurses

scheduled to work the mid-shift called in sick just hours before they were scheduled to work.

This left just two nurses to care for the 12 newborns on the unit, and also required Nurse Giselle

and Nurse Janet to work four additional hours. Nurse Giselle and Nurse Janet had their hands

full with assessing, monitoring, and feeding the howling babies. Towards the end of their 16-

hour shift, Nurse Giselle asked Nurse Janet to assist her briefly with feeding so they could get the

newborns back to their mothers promptly. Nurse Janet verbally agreed, but her nonverbal

communication was conveying an entirely different message.

Nurse Janet had an unresolved issue with Nurse Giselle that stemmed from previous

incidences of lateral violence (Lewis & Malecha, 2011). Nurse Giselle had been pushing Nurse

Janet around, belittling her, and occasionally even raising her voice towards her. This had been

going on since Nurse Janet got hired as a new graduate one year prior. Some coworkers

suspected that Nurse Giselle’s troubles were based on the fact that Nurse Janet had a Bachelor’s

degree, while she, on the other hand, had only an Associate’s degree. Whatever the reason, this

unacceptable behavior exhibited by Nurse Giselle set the stage for a sentinel event to take place

(Lewis & Malecha, 2011).

As Nurse Janet sat quietly feeding Mason Michael and Benjamin Alley, Nurse Giselle

approached her. Nurse Giselle began performing repeat assessments on Mason and Benjamin,

4


knowing well that Nurse Janet had already completed this task. These repeat assessments left

Nurse Janet feeling incompetent and belittled. When she was through, Nurse Giselle demanded

that Nurse Janet remove the newborns’ armbands and replace them, declaring that they were too

tight and would interfere with circulation. Nurse Janet did not feel comfortable with this switch

because she knew it was against hospital policy, and that duplicate armbands weren’t readily

available and needed to be printed. Unfortunately, Nurse Janet clipped the old bands because

she felt bullied and compelled to do so.

The unit clerk printed and delivered the new armbands to Nurse Janet, who was still

anxious and unsettled from the encounter she had with Nurse Giselle in the preceding moments.

Nurse Janet placed the armbands snuggly around the infants’ tiny ankles and wheeled them back

to their mothers. Mason Michael was now in the arms of Courtney and Dominic Alley, while

baby Benjamin Alley rested in the hands of Matthew and Megan Michael.

Root Cause Analysis

Definition

When an organization reports a sentinel event to The Joint Commission, they are also

responsible for disclosing the findings of their root cause analysis (Lambton & Mahlmeister,

2010). A root cause analysis is a retrospective analytical method used to meticulously look for

factors that may have contributed to the adverse outcome of the event. A key component to

conducting the root cause analysis is to focus on the failure of complex systems, instead of

focusing on the failure of an individual within the system. The main goal of this process is to

identify and uncover hidden factors that need correction (Lambton & Mahlmeister, 2010).

The framework for conducting a root cause analysis is typically outlined in a protocol within the

hospital (“Agency for Healthcare,” n.d.). There is a universal sequence of steps for conducting

5


this analysis that may vary slightly from one system to the next, but typically includes data

collection, event reconstruction, participant interviews, and record reviews. All of these steps are

used to piece together the sentinel event and locate the broken link. Once the errors have been

identified, the institution can begin the process of implementing change in order to prevent

similar sentinel events occurring in the future (“Agency for Healthcare,” n.d.).

Environment

Upon scrupulous examination of this sentinel event, it was established that multiple

components played a part in the switching of the two newborns. One contributing factor was

environment. The fact that the department was short staffed on this particular day set the stage

for mistakes to occur, by establishing an unsafe nurse-to-patient ratio. There is a wealth of

evidence available that conveys inverse correlations between nurse-to-patient ratios and higher

incidences in negative patient outcomes (Halm, et al., 2005). One study demonstrated that when

nurses spend increased hours with their patients, mortality and complication rates decrease.

These complications include pneumonia, gastrointestinal bleeding, urinary tract infections, shock

and cardiac arrest. Another study that was conducted revealed that patients are at an increased

risk for adverse outcomes, including respiratory failure and reintubation, when the nurse-to-

patient ratio is 1:3 or higher. Not only does an increase in patient-to-nurse ratios put added stress

on nurses, it also can lead to emotional exhaustion. According to Halm et al., “few large studies

that exist support the premise that higher nurse-to-patient ratios reduce the incidence of

emotional exhaustion and dissatisfaction for RNs” (2005). Though the repercussions of the

medical error in this particular case were not physiologic in nature, a lasting social and emotional

impact on the families occurred.

6


Another contributing factor to the creation of this unsafe environment was the fact that

both nurses were working overtime. Many healthcare organizations try to alleviate nursing staff

shortages by increasing work hours for nurses (Keller, 2009). While this seems like a quick and

easy solution, it, unfortunately, can create many negative consequences for both the patient and

the nurse. For the nurse, increased works hours lead to an increase in fatigue and a decrease in

alertness and productivity, which all negatively impact the employee's well-being. Shifts lasting

longer than eight hours cause nurses to make more medication errors, and increases the risk of

additional errors and near errors due to decreased vigilance (Keller, 2009). It isn’t difficult to

understand why medical errors increase when nurses are both physically and mentally

overworked. Both Nurse Giselle and Nurse Janet worked four hours over their regularly

scheduled shift, making exhaustion a factor in the switching of the newborns.

People

The intention of investigating the people involved in the sentinel event is not to single

anyone out, but is meant to determine if there was a human error or a system error that occurred.

An examination of the actions of these two individuals involved in the sentinel event reveals that

Nurse Giselle and Nurse Janet both exhibited behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. Nurse

Giselle is guilty of this by requiring Nurse Janet to renew bands without the new bands readily

available, disregarding the fact that it is against policy. This was Nurse Giselle’s way of

belittling Nurse Janet and making her feel that her assessment failed to recognize a risk for poor

circulation due to the tight bands. Disruptive behaviors, like the ones demonstrated here,

negatively affect patient outcomes and nursing practice (McNamara, 2012). These behaviors can

lead to compromised quality of care, a decrease in patient safety, an increase in medical errors,

and increased mortality (McNamara, 2012). Evidence-based research shows that hostility in the

7


acute care setting threatens patient safety by negatively influencing nursing actions (Wilson &

Phelps, 2013). It impairs nurses’ judgment, hinders the effectiveness of interventions, and alters

their behavior. One study noted that nurses who experience hostility on the clock are more likely

to carry out an order that they do not believe is in the best interest of the patient (Wilson &

Phelps, 2013). This is explicitly what Nurse Janet did.

Nurse Janet was also a contributor because she failed to respond to Nurse Giselle’s

intimidating behavior in a constructive manner. By changing the bands, she knowingly broke

hospital policy and jeopardized the safety of the newborns. Her judgment was clouded by fear,

anxiety, and intimidation. She failed to confront and report this year long conflict, thus allowing

the behavior to continue until it resulted in a medical error. Bullying in nursing is persistently

underreported (Franklin & Chadwick, 2013). The majority of events go unreported due to the

worry of retaliation. If the reporting nurse thinks that the offender will be protected from

reprimand, they are more likely to keep the harassment to themselves, as done in this case

(Franklin & Chadwick, 2013). Nurse managers and hospital administrators must be made aware

of conflict in order to intercede and find solutions (McElhaney, 1996).

Management

After an examination of the management was conducted, findings revealed that a hands-

off administration approach was regularly used in this department. In this department, the

nursing staff was granted excessive autonomy and few interventions from management took

place. This administrative approach contributed to this sentinel event because the two nurses

were left unsupported and were given no help with conflict resolution. When backseat leaders

put too much trust in their employees without interactive feedback, employees are more likely to

fail to meet the set target actions (Schlachter & Hildebrandt, 2012). Specific to bullying, when

8


nothing is done to intervene, the bully will simply continue bullying because they feel that they

have been given permission to do so (Longo, 2013). According to Longo, “when no retribution is

seen, there is no need to change” (2013). Nurse Giselle was allowed to continue to display these

disruptive behaviors because management failed to fully and effectively participate in the

ongoings of the department.

Management also failed, as a whole, to develop a workplace in which nurses felt that they

could report disruptive behaviors without retribution. As previously mentioned, when staff fears

retaliation or a lack of action by management, rates of reporting decrease.

Policy & Procedure

The investigation of the policies and procedures related to the sentinel event led to the

identification of key system failures. Although Nurse Janet knowingly broke procedure, a

fundamental education and availability of policies and procedures was also lacking in the

institution. Policies and procedures are an integral part of the proper functioning of a hospital

(Randolph, 2006). Policies and procedures help by establishing standardized practices, reducing

the amount of disparities in practice, and increasing adherence and compliance to rules and

regulations within the institution (Irving, 2014). Due to the fact that policies and procedures

serve such an important function within hospitals, quick and easy access to them is crucial to

success. Unfortunately, the policy and procedure handbook in this particular hospital was

printed rather than electronically accessible. According to White, printed manuals can be

confusing and can become outdated quickly (2010). Electronically accessible manuals, however,

allows all employees to have easier access to standardized information (White, 2010).

Staff should take time to periodically review these documents and ask supervisors for

clarification in order to avoid patient harm (Randolph, 2006). All new policies need to be written

9


clearly and concisely, so that errors, mix-ups, and misunderstandings do not occur. Ultimately, it

is the nurse’s responsibility to know the policies before performing a procedure and it is the

administration’s job to make sure nurses are well versed with the material (Randolph, 2006).

Communication

In nursing, communication isn’t merely the giving and receiving of information. It is the

foundation of patient safety and is crucial in transitions between caregivers and healthcare

professionals (Laskowski-Jones, 2014). Nurse Giselle disregarded this concept when she

continually demeaned, micromanaged, and made ongoing derogatory remarks towards Nurse

Janet. Her communication style was ineffective and conveyed passive aggressive violence

toward Nurse Janet, thereby setting the stage for a medical error to occur. The Joint Commission

estimates that nearly 80% of medical errors are made solely because of miscommunication

(Seifert, 2012). Although this particular sentinel event was more a result of bad communication

rather than miscommunication, it is still important to address the issue.

According to Ennis, Happell, Broadbent, and Reid-Searl, “leaders who approach

communication in an open and frank manner are considered more informative by their peers.

Communication from those in leadership roles is regarded as more than an exchange of

information and includes an interpersonal process that can have a direct impact on clinical care

and a team’s performance” (2013). Research has shown, that when used in an effective manner,

communication skills can empower and support peers in addition to improving responsiveness

and increasing efficiency (Ennis, Happell, Broadbent, & Reid-Searl, 2013). Although Nurse

Giselle was not a manager or supervising official in this event, every nurse has the opportunity to

be an effective leader. This is especially true in this case given the fact that Nurse Giselle is

senior to Nurse Janet, and has a broader knowledge base and scope of experience. Nurse

10


Giselle’s experience gave her a perfect opportunity to perform teaching and provide guidance to

Nurse Janet regarding her assessment of circulation. Instead, she used ineffective and

intimidating communication which resulted in the accidental switch of the newborns.

While Nurse Giselle lacked education on therapeutic communication and leadership

skills, Nurse Janet lacked education regarding assertiveness. Using assertiveness in the

healthcare setting plays a role in patient advocacy and ensuring that all patients receive

appropriate and safe care (Weiss & Tappen, 2015). Both nurses seemed to lack proper training

in the concept of effective communication, which could be a result of a systematic failure of the

hospital to provide educational opportunities. According to Ak, Cinar, Sutcigil, Congologlu, and

Haciomeroglu, the number of undesirable nursing errors decreases significantly when nurses are

provided with communication training (2010). Therefore, this lack of training can be viewed as a

contributing factor to the sentinel event that needs to be addressed.

Change Driven Action Plan

The product of the root cause analysis is an action plan (“Joint Commission’s,” 1998).

This plan must identify the strategies that the hospital proposes to implement in order to reduce

the risk of subsequent analogous events from occurring. The Joint Commission requires that the

plan addresses responsibility for implementation, oversight, pilot testing as needed, time lines,

and strategies for measuring effectiveness (“Joint Commission’s,” 1998).

Targeted Change

Although the root cause analysis revealed many separate issues that all acted as

contributing factors to the sentinel event, the largest, and most direct factor was that of incivility

between the two nurses. Therefore, the targeted change is to curtail incivility in nursing and

keep it from causing further sentinel events. This includes removing behaviors such as lateral

11


violence, scapegoating, relational aggression, oppression, and negativity amongst staff members.

These behaviors should be replaced with kindness, teamwork, direct communication,

constructive behaviors, acceptance, and collaborative problem solving (Donnelly, 2013). The

change, outlined below, will be comprehensive and address all aspects of the system failure.

Stakeholders and Roles

Hospital stakeholders can be partitioned into three groups- internal, interface, and

external (Fottler, Blair, Whitehead, Laus, & Savage, 1989). The internal stakeholders include

management, professional staff, and non-professional staff members. They operate entirely

within the defined boundaries of the institution and are important for the maintenance of the

hospital functioning. According to Lyne Quine’s research study, based on the extent of

workplace bullying in United Kingdom hospitals, 38 percent of nurses have reported being

bullied within the last year (Stevens, 2015). Of the same population, 42 percent of those nurses

have witnessed the bullying incidents. Another study Quine conducted showed that of 462

British midwives, 46 percent have reported being bullied. These percentages are very high,

amounting to almost half of the hospital’s nursing population. Of the 46 percent of midwives

who reported being bullied, 55 percent have considered leaving their job within a year (Stevens,

2015). Decreasing incivility would decrease turnover of these staff members and improve job

satisfaction while maintaining an effective operating framework (Fottler et al., 1989).

Interface stakeholders consist of the physicians, hospital board of trustees, corporate

parent company, stockholders, taxpayers, and other contributors (Fottler et al., 1989). These

individuals function both in and out of the hospital setting. They are important for the

maintenance of financial balance and success of the hospital system as a whole. According to

Hibbard, Stockard, and Tusler, a study was conducted based on making hospital performance

12


reports public (2015). What the study found was that hospitals, whose performance reports were

made public, believed that it would affect their public image and reputation. Having a poor

reputation was found to affect not only their client population, but also their investors. If a

hospital has a poor image to the public eye, then investors and taxpayers will want to see their

money go elsewhere. Therefore, these hospitals were found to be more motivated to fix the areas

that needed improvement in order to avoid a poor performance report (Hibbard, Stockard, &

Tusler, 2015). One of the biggest contributors to poor patient care and satisfaction that can lead

to a poor report is lateral violence. This includes between both health care staff members and

their patients. A reduction in occurrences of lateral violence would prevent sentinel events and

reassure these factions that their monetary contributions to the hospital are sound investments

(Fottler et al., 1989)

External stakeholders are made up of patients and third-party payers (Fottler et al., 1989).

They function entirely outside of the organization and provide monumental input. The

relationship between the hospital and these external stakeholders is symbiotic and

interdependent. According to Johnson, a hospital’s reputation is the key to its success, and the

patients are the individuals who give a hospital its reputation (2014). Johnson’s research was

based off of the study of the National Research Corporation Market Insights Survey (2014). This

survey is considered the largest health care consumer survey in the United States. The survey

found that eight percent of patients rated their hospital experience poor enough to not reuse the

services themselves nor recommend the facility to family or friends. As a consequence of losing

these patients, the hospital will also lose money. However, if the patient has a positive and

highly engaged experience with their hospital, not only will they return for the services, they

may also bring more patients to the facility (Johnson, 2014). The hospital depends on these

13


stakeholders for its survival. Incivility that leads to sentinel events would deter these

stakeholders from utilizing hospital services and impact the hospital significantly (Fottler et al.,

1989).

Target Population

The targeted population that is specific for this modification of behavior is nurses and

nurse managers (Lewis & Malecha, 2011). The goal is to set standardized expectations regarding

mutual trust and respect between all members of staff. Implementation is crucial because

relationships between nurses, managers, and peers are critical to healthy work environments.

With that being said, it is important to understand that each of these individuals and positions

have specific roles. The role of the nurse manager is to set the tone of the environment (Lewis &

Malecha, 2011). More specifically, they are responsible for the quality of nursing practice and

the care provided to their nurses and patients. Nurse managers oversee all budget matters and

personnel while maintaining an environment that encourages employee engagement and

professional practice to thrive (Cipriano, 2011). The role of the floor nurse is to work

collaboratively and cooperatively with co-workers and patients, in order to provide the safest and

most efficient patient care possible (Lewis & Malecha, 2011). To get a nurse’s perspective on

the issue of incivility or standardized expectations, other than through research, an interview was

conducted with a floor nurse at Memorial Medical Center in Modesto, California . The registered

nurse agreed that nurses need to work together and that managers play a huge role in the

dynamic of that relationship (J. Smallwood, personal communication, October 30, 2014). Her

attitude towards incivility was strong. She implied that all nurses have a duty to their patients and

that there is simply no room for dramatics in the workplace. Janet, the interviewed nurse,

regarded passive aggressive and undermining behaviors as a useless waste of time that needs to

14


be addressed and resolved immediately. The nurse should be terminated if patient safety is

risked. Smallwood’s overall message involved the absolute need for the implementation of a

change in current practice in order to put an end to incivility (J. Smallwood, personal

communication, October 30, 2014).

Plan for Change Using Lewin’s Theory

Unfreezing

The first step in Lewin’s change theory is unfreezing (Goldberg & Sifonis, 1994). This

stage requires a nurse or nurse manager to first recognize the need for change (Shirey, 2013). An

analysis of the environment must then be carried out in order to recognize the differences

between the current state, an environment that is negatively affected by incivility, and the desired

state, an environment free of incivility. This is followed by increasing the driving forces that will

direct behavior away from disruptive behavior (Shirey, 2013). For instance, staff will be

reminded during report that they are to write down each instance of lateral violence they witness

that day. This information will be used for review at a weekly staff meeting, thus bringing

awareness to how often this violence occurs, as well as the affects it has on the staff as a whole.

The ultimate goal is to have fewer instances of lateral violence, which will lead to fewer adverse

patient outcomes and sentinel events. As occurrences of lateral violence decrease, so too will the

frequency and length of these meetings.

To better prepare staff to deal with disruptive behavior, administration will work with the

education department. They will collaboratively implement programs that teach skills and

confidence building exercises for the management of unacceptable behaviors (Goldberg &

Sifonis, 1994). One such improvement is to educate staff on the cognitive-behavioral approach

(Flateau-Lux & Gravel, 2014). This consists of rehearsing prototypical responses to the most

15


often occurring types of bullying so that nurses will be more confident in addressing the issue

when it occurs. This assertive technique was tested in a study using 26 new registered nurses in

Boston, Massachusetts and was proven effective. Using this approach provides the staff with

effective conflict management skills and effective strategies to reduce or eliminate lateral

violence by confronting their offenders (Flateau-Lux & Gravel, 2014). Administration will use

evidence-based techniques, as mentioned above, to initiate change and provide resources for staff

to review prior to making that change. The goal is for staff to understand that administrators are

objective in the process (Goldberg & Sifonis, 1994).

Decreasing resistance to change is another aspect of unfreezing (Goldberg & Sifonis,

1994). Change occurs rapidly in healthcare due to restructuring the workplace, advancements in

technology, and the need for efficiency and growth (Curtis & White, 2002). Healthcare workers

are affected by these constant changes and it can cause feelings of stress, uncertainty, ambiguity,

and the loss of control which results in resistance to change. Nurse managers attempting to

Implement new programs or strategies to decrease lateral violence, need to recognize that these

feelings of resistance are likely to occur. Decreasing resistance can be accomplished using

several strategies. Introducing the change slowly allows nurses to adjust and to accept the change

without becoming overwhelmed. Allowing nurses to actively participate in the planning and

implementation of change reduces uncertainty and increases acceptance of change. Providing

education regarding the benefits of the change should be discussed frequently through discussion

and presentations so that nurses are aware of the purpose or goal of the change. Also, developing

a sense of trust and support between management and employees allows for an easier transition

through change because staff will feel more comfortable with asking questions, requesting

guidance, and giving feedback. This sense of trust will help to ensure that events of lateral

16


violence do not go unreported due to a fear of retaliation. While resistance will occur with any

change, it’s important that it’s not viewed as a threat, but as an opportunity to improve the work

environment. It’s up to management to implement and enforce these changes in a supportive

manner (Curtis & White, 2002).

Changing and Moving

The second step in Lewin’s theory is change (Goldberg & Sifronis, 1994). This stage

involves implementing the changes that were designed by nurse managers to improve the work

environment (Shirey, 2013). The proposed action plan of weekly meetings and discussions will

officially begin with the guidance of management. Nurse managers will be expected to be a

source of support for new nurses (Khadjehturian, 2012). They will be taught to talk, listen,

clarify, and mediate. Team meetings will be held at the beginning of each shift and will address

nurses’ concerns and patients’ needs. This is intended to encourage teamwork, raise morale, and

promote effective communication (Khadjehturian, 2012). It can be rewarding to make changes

and work towards a solution that, when implemented, creates an environment that benefits

everyone (Weiss & Tappen, 2015).

It’s important to address disruptive behavior in the weekly meetings but, it’s also

important to address it directly following its occurrence. In the event of lateral violence, physical

proximity promotes a supportive environment and nurses will be advised not to walk away when

they see bullying (Khadjehturian, 2012). They should stand behind the victim and show strength

and support, especially with novice nurses because they are less likely to stand up to experienced

nurses. There becomes a shift of power when a nurse exhibiting bullying behavior is confronted

by several nurses rather than just one (Longo, 2010). Sometimes this alone resolves the issue of

disruptive behavior (Longo, 2010). Nurse managers should also always be made aware of these

17


incidents (Khadjehturian, 2012). Stopping disruptive behavior in the instance that it happens

helps to reduce negative outcomes (Trossman, 2014). A qualitative study was done by

interviewing nine nurses, who had experience with disruptive behavior, about how to

successfully manage it. It was a consensus that situations were handled more effectively when

handled calmly, in a private setting, and when each nurse’s point of view was taken into

consideration (Lux, Hutcheson, & Peden, 2012). These are all things that can be implemented

and discussed in the weekly meetings.

A zero-tolerance policy for any bullying or aggression should be created and

implemented (Khadjehturian, 2012). This should be a collaborative effort in which

administrators, nurse managers, staff nurses, physicians, and other members of the healthcare

team work together to take responsibility for the environment in which they work (Rocker,

2008). The policy should outline the goals for an anti-bullying environment which includes the

following: treating nurses and patients with dignity, respect, and fairness, preventing demeaning

behaviors such as discrimination or exclusion, communicating openly and constructively, being

creative with handling conflict, making full use of nurses talents, and developing positive

behaviors (Rocker, 2008). The policy should also outline a code of conduct that describes

behaviors that are considered to be disruptive (Longo, 2010). The actions that need to be taken

following a breach should be clearly outlined. Staff members that choose to break policy should

be mentored and guided on ways to improve their behavior and interactions with other staff

members and patients. If behavior does not change after mentoring, mandatory classes will be

available for the patient to attend to address their behavior. It’s important that these steps in

correcting behavior are well documented. The last step in addressing breaches is disciplinary

action that can result in suspension or termination if behavior does not change and adhere to

18


policy. The Policy should be easy to understand and easily accessible to review (Longo, 2010).

The importance of the enforcement of this policy will be re-emphasized regularly at weekly

meetings and on the floor to promote the change of culture. Nurses and nurse managers will hold

briefings with self-appointed representatives to make displays, posters, and put together short

presentations at staff meetings with regards to the importance of civility (Farrelly, 2013). The

education provided will also include topics such as communication skills, willingness to

communicate, the code of conduct, how to report a breach, and skills to help confront disruptive

behavior (Longo, 2010). The idea of shared governance will be used to help maintain

equilibrium in the workplace (Farrelly, 2013). Nurses will head committees and be invited to get

involved and take control of their floors. They will be motivated and empowered to be examples

and lead their peers to a more safe and productive culture of civility (Farrelly, 2013).

Refreezing & Unanticipated Consequences

The third and final step in Lewin’s theory is refreezing (Goldberg & Sifronis, 1994). At

this point, the change will be established as a new habit and become the new standard operating

style (Shirey, 2013). Compliance audits will be conducted monthly, for one year, by a self-

appointed team of staff nurses and nurse managers (Healy et al., 2008). At this time, the

refreezing aspect of the change theory will be realized. Steps can be taken, as needed, to continue

to move the culture of nursing away from incivility. Some of the implementation techniques may

be effective and others may not. Adjustments can be made during audits to guide the direction of

the plan and form new goals. Unanticipated outcomes can be expressed and addressed at

monthly audits as well. They may include failure of nurses to cooperate, a lack of follow-through

from nurse managers, decreased morale, exhaustion over civility issues, and reversion back to

prior behavior. Outcomes will be taken into consideration and reiterated to the audit committee,

19


who will work collaboratively with all staff to continue to make improvements. Patient safety is

worth the ongoing effort and continuation of the change of culture (Healy et al., 2008).

Through a thorough investigation by St. Petersburg Medical Center and The Joint

Commission, Mason Michael discovered that he was switched at birth in the midst of a sentinel

event. It was revealed that the undermining of the culture of safety and involvement in

workplace lateral violence by nursing staff led to his mix-up. Through the use of Lewin’s

Theory, this horrific mistake can lead to positive change. Lewin’s theory is crucial for the

development, implementation, and sustainability of civility in nursing. This tool acts as a

blueprint that needs to be adopted by all nurses in order to improve faculty communication and

interaction. These improvements will, in turn, enhance patient care, and help to prevent

unwanted sentinel events from occurring in the future.

20


References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Network. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://psnet.ahrq.gov/collectionBrowse.aspx?taxonomyID=626

Ak, M., Cinar, O., Sutcigil, L., Congologlu, E., & Haciomeroglu, B., (2011). Communication

skills training for emergency nurses. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 8(5),

397-401.

Cipriano, P. (2011). Move up to the role of nurse manager. American Nurse Today. 6 (3).

Retrieved from http://www.americannursetoday.com/move-up-to-the-role-of-nurse-

manager/

Curtis, E., & White, P. (2002). Resistance to change: causes and solutions. Nursing

Management- UK, 8(10), 15-20.

Donnelly, G. (2013). Changing the culture of nursing. Holistic Nursing Practice, 27(4),193-194.

Ennis, G., Happell, B., Broadbent, M., & Reid-Searl, K. (2013). The importance of

communication for clinical leaders in mental health nursing: The perspective of nurses

working in mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34, 814-819. doi:

10.3109/01612840.2013.829539

Farrelly, R. (2013). Nursing in a changing landscape. British Journal of Nursing, 22(17), 1037.

Flateau-Lux, L. R., & Gravel, T. (2014). Put a stop to bullying new nurses. Home Healthcare

Nurse, 32(4), 225-229. doi:10.1097/NHH.0000000000000045

Fottler, M., Blair, J., Whitehead, C., Laus, M., & Savage, G. (1989). Assessing key stakeholders:

Who matters to hospitals and why. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 34(4),

525.

21


Franklin, N., & Chadwick, S. (2013). The impact of workplace bullying in nursing. Australian

Nursing Journal, 21(1), 31.

Goldberg, B., & Sifonis, J. (1994). Planning theory: Keep on keepin' on. Journal of Business

Strategy, 15(4), 23-24.

Halm, M., Perterson, M., Kandels, M., Sabo, J., Blalack, M., Braden, R., Gryczman, A., Krisko-

Hagel, K., Larson, D., Lemay, D., Sisler, B., Strom, L., & Topham, D. (2005). Hospital

nurse staffing and patient mortality, emotional exhaustion, and job dissatisfaction.

Clinical Nurse Specialist, 19(5), 241-250.

Healy, K., Hegarty, J., Keating, G., Landers, F., Leopold, S., et al. (2008). The change

experience: How we updated our perioperative nursing documentation. Journal of

Perioperative Practice, 18(4), 163-167.

Hibbard, J., Stockard, J., & Tusler, M. (2015). Hospital performance reports: Impact on quality,

market share, and reputation. Health Affairs, 24(4), 1150-1160. Retrieved from

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/4/1150.full.html

Irving, A. (2014, October). Policies and procedures for healthcare organizations: A risk

management perspective. Patient Safety and Quality Healthcare. Retrieved from

http://psqh.com/september-october-2014/policies-and-procedures-for-healthcare-

organizations-a-risk-management-perspective

Johnson, K. (2014). Getting It Right: The link between the patient experience and hospital

reputation [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.nationalresearch.com/blog/33/

Joint commission's sentinel event policy: Disclose or ignore?. (1998). Hospital peer review,

23(9), 157.

22


Keller, S. M. (2009). Effects of extended work shifts and shift work on patient safety,

productivity, and employee health. AAOHN Journal: Official Journal Of The American

Association Of Occupational Health Nurses, 57(12), 497-502. doi: 10.3928/08910162-

20091124-05

Khadjehturian, R. (2012). Stopping the culture of workplace incivility in nursing. Clinical

Journal of Oncology Nursing, 16(6), 638-639.

Lambton, J., & Mahlmeister, L. (2010). Conducting root cause analysis with nursing students:

Best practice in nursing education. The Journal of Nursing Education, 49(8), 444-448.

Laskowski-Jones, L. (2014). Communication: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Nursing, 44(6), 6.

Lewis, P., & Malecha, A. (2011). The impact of workplace incivility on the work environment,

manager skill, and productivity. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(1), 41-47.

Longo, J. (2010). Combating disruptive behaviors: Strategies to promote a healthy work

environment. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15(1).

Lux, K. M., Hutcheson, J. B., & Peden, A. R. (2012). Successful management of disruptive

behavior: A descriptive study. Issues In Mental Health Nursing, 33(4), 236-243. doi:

10.3109/01612840.2011.647255

McElhaney, R. (1996). Conflict management in nursing administration. Nursing Management,

27(3), 49.

McNamara, S. (2012). Incivility in nursing: Unsafe nurse, unsafe patients. Association of

Perioperative Registered Nurses Journal, 95(4), 535-540.

Randolph, S. (2006). Developing policies and procedures. AAOHN Journal: Official Journal of

the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, 54(11), 501.

23


Rocker, C. (2008). Addressing nurse-to-nurse bullying to promote nurse retention. Online

Journal Of Issues In Nursing, 13(3).

Schlachter, C., & Hildebrandt, T. (2012). Backseat leaders. Leadership Excellence, 29(10), 7.

Seifert, P. (2012). Implementing AORN recommended practices for transfer of patient care

information. The American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, 96(5),

475- 493. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2012.08.011

Shirey, M. (2013). Lewin's theory of planned change as a strategic resource. The Journal of

Nursing Administration, 43(2), 69-72.

Stevens, S. (2015). Nursing workforce retention: Challenging a bullying culture. Health Affairs.

Retrieved from http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/5/189.full

The Joint Commission. (2014). Sentinel event policy and procedures. Retrieved from

http://www.jointcommission.org/Sentinel_Event_Policy_and_Procedures/

Trossman, S. (2014). Toward civility ANA, Nurses promote strategies to prevent disruptive

behaviors. The American Nurse, 62(2), 3-4. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu

Wilson, B., & Phelps, C. (2013). Horizontal hostility: A threat to patient safety. Journal of

Nursing Administration’s Healthcare Law, Ethics and Regulation, 15(1), 51-55.

Weiss, S. A., & Tappen, R. M. (2015). Essentials of Nursing Leadership Management.

Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company

White, N. (2010). Compliance matters. Make it a policy: the keys to creating a comprehensive

policy and procedure manual. PT In Motion, 2(9), 54-57.

24

INCIVILITY IN NURSING 25

Documents

PORTFOLIO-Senitnel Event Paper Final