Psychological Safety v Accountability within Regulatory Frameworks in Healthcare
In the evolving landscape of healthcare, the interplay between psychological safety and accountability within regulatory frameworks is critical for fostering a culture of openness while maintaining high standards of care. Psychological safety enables healthcare professionals to communicate concerns, report errors, and share ideas without fear of punishment, leading to improved patient outcomes and a learning-oriented environment. However, the simultaneous demand for accountability, ensuring adherence to regulatory standards, often creates tension, potentially discouraging transparency. This paper explores the delicate balance between these two essential principles. It examines how regulatory frameworks shape workplace dynamics, influencing the ability of healthcare teams to operate effectively while upholding ethical and professional responsibilities. Through a review of existing literature and case studies, this study identifies key challenges, including fear of punitive measures, institutional pressures, and the impact of leadership on fostering both accountability and psychological safety. Strategies for harmonizing these elements are proposed, including Just Culture models, restorative justice approaches, and leadership-driven safety initiatives. By integrating accountability mechanisms that support, rather than undermine, psychological safety, healthcare systems can enhance both staff well-being and patient care outcomes. This research underscores the necessity of a regulatory landscape that encourages learning from failures while maintaining professional integrity, ultimately leading to a safer, more resilient healthcare environment.
Institutions
- Henry Morrison Flagler Museum (US)
- Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education (RU)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
- Published
- 2025-02-04
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14800908
- Primary Topic
- Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00