In Part 1, we explored the three stages of organisational staff support that should underpin compassionate engagement in PSIRF: preparation, post-incident response, and pathways to specialist support.
But how well are we doing with compassionate engagement and meaningful involvement? Do you have any data that helps to answer this question?
I’ll go back to the start, with some suggested data points that you could perhaps consider. These are adapted from a piece of work Leah Bowden is doing at West Midlands Ambulance Service – I’m sharing with her permission.
Suggested Evaluation Questions for Staff Involved in Learning Responses:
Q1. How likely would you be to raise another concern after experiencing this learning response?
Scale: 1 (not at all likely) → 10 (extremely likely)
This is perhaps the most important metric. If staff wouldn’t report another incident after experiencing your process, your approach is actively undermining patient safety.
Q2. During the learning response I was treated fairly and with respect
Scale: Strongly disagree → Strongly agree
Fair treatment and respect are non-negotiable foundations of psychological safety.
Q3. I felt involved in the learning response and my perspective was listened to
Scale: Strongly disagree → Strongly agree
Feeling heard isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s essential for both staff wellbeing and meaningful organizational learning.
Q4. Please provide any other feedback you’d like us to know about
Free text response
Our investigation processes should be healing healthcare, not harming it. Staff wellbeing and patient safety aren’t competing priorities, they’re linked. When we support our staff through compassionate, systems-focused learning responses, everyone benefits.
As always, hope this is helpful. If you are thinking you’d like to dig a bit deeper into how PSIRF is working in your organisation or get some thoughts/advice on a particular problem – drop me an email to book in for a no obligation chat.
Thanks,
Lauren
