Psychological Safety and Patient Safety: A Systematic and Narrative Review
A systematic attempt to find quantitative evidence that psychological safety improves objective patient safety outcomes, and the paper to have to hand when that link is asserted as settled. Montgomery and colleagues searched eight databases, admitting only studies whose outcomes were observable professional actions and reporting behaviours rather than self-reported perceptions of safety, on the grounds that self-report inflates the association between climate and outcome. Eighty-nine papers reached full-text review and nine qualified. Five reported a significant relationship. The five point in opposite directions. The contradiction is the finding rather than a defect in the review. Higher psychological safety predicted more error reporting in some studies and fewer reported errors in others, and both readings are defensible: more reporting can mean a team that surfaces what it finds, and less reporting can mean a team that has fixed the underlying problems, or one that has concluded reporting is pointless. Anderson and colleagues found that units lower in psychological safety used more physical restraint while units higher in it used more seclusion, which resists any clean interpretation at all. As the authors put it, reporting patient safety problems can indicate both high and low psychological safety, and there is no way to tell which without knowing the culture and history of the particular organisation. Two structural arguments make this more than a null result. The first is about measurement: most of the nine studies used Edmondson's questionnaire, which asks people about this team, and the reviewers observe that nobody knows which team a respondent has in mind when answering, a question that goes to the heart of aggregating the construct in settings where staff move between shifting groups. The second is definitional and supplies the conclusion. Patient safety in this literature means the absence of harm; psychological safety means a climate for interpersonal risk-taking; so the two are not merely hard to connect but pull against each other, since a measure of harm avoided cannot register the value of a risk taken. Goodhart is cited directly. The caveats belong to the evidence base rather than to the review. Eight of the nine studies are American, 88 per cent of the pooled sample are nurses, the outcomes were too heterogeneous to pool (which is why this is a narrative synthesis), and agreement between reviewers at full-text screening was low at 0.36 precisely because what counts as an objective patient safety outcome is itself contested. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the authors say plainly. Read it as a demand for better questions rather than as a verdict on the construct.
Save this paper to a bibliography, keep notes on it, and export citations. Create a free account →
Neighbours (12)
- Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension
- Learning from Mistakes Is Easier Said Than Done: Group and Organizational Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error
- Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature
- Psychological Safety: A Systematic Review of the Literature
- Making it Safe: The Effects of Leader Inclusiveness and Professional Status on Psychological Safety and Improvement Efforts in Health Care Teams
- Parachutes & Evidence
- PS Isn't Enough
- Psychological Safety in Healthcare
- When Is Psychological Safety Helpful in Organizations? A Longitudinal Study
- Beyond Metrics
- Goodhart's / Cobra Effect
- The Presence and Potential Impact of Psychological Safety in the Healthcare Setting: An Evidence Synthesis