[[Learning]] Lon Setnik tags:: #on/learning #on/psychologicalsafety dates:: 2022-03-02 people:: #people/jennyrudolph | #people/evepurdy | #people/amyedmondson *Building and maintaining a space where risk taking can occur and real issues can be discussed is the work of the facilitator.* _"Psychological Safety is a perceived aspect of team climate" (Roussin et al, 2018 p. 39)_ ## The big idea: Psychological safety is emergent, and will be experienced differently by different members of the learning environment. A trap will be assuming the perception of psychological safety on the part of the learning leader is shared. The learning leader can think about building the psychological safety of the moment through thinking of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, and building upon them to get to self-actualization as a _last step_. Active and explicit acknowledgement of the individual differences of experience, and the value of those individual experiences, with explicit conversational processes (think-pair-share) and requests for even participation will fight the natural dominance by participants with self-efficacy, hierarchy, and perceived psychological safety. Acknowledge the need for co-creation. Intervene when necessary. ![[F8241713-B765-4500-84E0-14C6BBDD178D.jpeg]] ![[definition of psychological safety]] ## Internal and external (to the Individual) factors play a role in honest participation ![[Internal and External factors influencing active participation in simulation.jpg]] (Roussin et al, 2018) ### Internal to the Individual - [[self-efficacy]] ==Participants with lower self-efficacy (often lower hierarchy) may have a worse experience because the high-efficacy participants may dominate the learning conversation, since they experience a lower bar to participation. Thus the learning experience may unintentionally be biased towards those already experiencing high self-efficacy.== - Think Pair Share - Nominal Group Technique - Explicitly requesting input from the quiet participants - Process and actions that can get everyone's input - similar to [[Quiet The Secret Power Of Introverts]] #### The learning leader needs to help build [[Relating]] self-efficacy with processes and support A specific [[focus attention]] on Participants attention on: Self (quality of knowledge and abilities) - “The sources include - (a) successful personal history with a task (i.e., mastery experiences), - (b) observation of others who succeed with a task (i.e., vicarious learning), and - (c) encouragement from respected others.” (Roussin et al. 2018, p 43) - Peers (relationships and comparisons) - Culture (openness, psychological safety) - Value of the moment ### External to the Individual - [[Psychological Safety]] [[learning leader]] sets the tone, and [[peer support]] plays a role as well, it is not only the judgment of the educator that is at play, but the judgment of the peers and the culture that develops through [[co-creating rules]] and [[emergence]] ### Our emotional state changes our readiness for learning This reminds me of [[Amygdala Hijacking]] and how [[anger floods us with motivation]], the different ways that [[emotion changes the world we are in]]. Emotion interferes with our ability to show what we are capable of when we are in a state of emotional activation. In simulation, the goals of our experiences in [[facilitating]] is to create and validate that we are doing our best to create a moment of learning. I also think about [[focus attention]], when we feel unsafe we are focusing on our insecurity. When we feel safe we can jump in and try. [[On the psychology of simulation]], it is critical that the learners are able to function at the highest level of their abilities. However, since it is often "not real" they cannot always do what they wish. The question is, how can they learn best in that environment? “Considering simulation in this way acknowledges that it is ‘a complex social endeavor’ (Dieckmann et al. 2007, p. 183) an activity which frequently engages technology and simulators, but which is principally a social practice assembling groups of learners” (Somerville et al., 2023, p. 4) Safety belongs to the recipients and is the work of the [[learning leader]]. The key work here is actually to show [[modeling vulnerability]]! When the facilitator says "I don't know" it opens the door for others to not know, when the facilitator participates in the learning conversation takeaways, either about the medicine or about their facilitation, it shows that the facilitator can learn. ### Start with [[constructive alignment]] Learners need to get into their [[zone of proximal development]], which by it's very nature is outside of the comfort zone. This requires the opportunity to be imperfect, which can provide the opportunity to learn from experience and even get into [[Flow]] when they are in difficulty and learning. ### The Prebrief ![[twelve tips for the prebrief for psych safety.jpg]] Team psychological safety is a shared belief that members have the ability to take individual risk without fear of ridicule. This matters in simulation because people, teams, and organizations enter a learning experience or debriefing with a set of values and emotions that shape their experience and their ability to learn. Those are intrinsic and idiosyncratic to each individual, the dynamic of each team, and each organization. The [[facilitating]] of each event can add to and positively shape the learning and culture, or can negatively shape the learning and culture, by way of re-enforcing or interrupting negative behaviors and traditional hierarchy. Saying that there is psychological safety is unrelated to its presence. Psychological safety relies on trust and mutual respect, and is a belief, and just as [[wisdom can't be told]], psychological safety can't be told. ## Maintaining Psychological Safety During the Debrief “The simulation debrief should be underpinned by the ILOs (Fanning and Gaba 2007); perceived in this way, the debrief is an extension of the pre-brief conversation. Congruence between the debrief and the pre-brief reassures learners that the psychological safety groundwork established prior to the simulation activity is being upheld and that the debriefing will focus on the agreed learning contract (Ross 2021).” (Somerville et al., 2023, p. 6) Organizations can foster psychological safety when the [[Leading]] team speaks with [[Leader humility]], and fosters open communication. [[modeling vulnerability]] and openly discussing their own errors, being open to feedback, speaking with advocacy and not negative observations, and when the leaders deeds and words are aligned around the safety culture create an organization where safety is higher. Teams create safety when leaders reduce hierarchy by inviting input from lower-ranked team members, when they foster inclusiveness, and when they emphasize the value of different viewpoints. When familiarity across teams and people has been fostered and is high, the psychological safety is likely to be higher. Team cohesiveness is, paradoxically, related to less speaking up, and can even increase the risk of groupthink. Individuals can be less likely to offer alternative viewpoints when the team has a strong identity. Individuals' psychological safety is improved with a growth [[Mindset]]. There is a U-shaped curve related to speaking up, when it is very unsafe or when it is very safe. Individual characteristics of bravery also are related to likeliness to speak up, but this is unrelated to the psychological safety. ## Restoring Psychological Safety _Requires a reframing of upset, overly quiet, argumentative, or combative learners and faculty from judgement and threat to learning leader towards data about the psychological safety of the room._ ### Steps: 1. Recognize the threats 2. Pause the action, embody the leadership role 3. Reframe from "Difficult Learners" to "Psychological Threat Meter" 4. Focus on changing learning leader behavior 5. Normalize the emotions as a sign of caring 6. If appropriate - name the dynamic in the room 7. Bring a positive affect, embrace the moment and the opportunity to learn one level deeper and receive the feedback of the real world ![[Restoring Psych Safety - Kolbe.jpg]] | Upset Learner | Learning Leader | | ---- | ---- | | - Combative with another learner | Name the dynamic. Elevate conversation to meta conversation. _Embrace_ this as an opportunity to discuss something important and often undiscussible | | - Defensive about sim activity | Agree with the challenges of realism in simulation, 100% agreement. Redirect with, "Let's explore what we can learn from the situation." | | - Faculty argue or get upset | Acknowledge, pause, validate this is a sign that we care and it's interfering with the learning | | - Upset Participant | Get that it's being driven by emotion, Identify the emotion (ok to be wrong), Validate the emotion, Explore, or offer to explore | | | | %% ## What's the opposite argument? The opposite argument to psychological safety is the idea you can't make people feel anything the feeling is all inside them. They are responsible for ensuring the feelings they have. The world is a difficult place, people need to develop their own tools for resilience, for speaking up, for embracing the challenges of the world. ## What questions do I have? Amy Edmondson's work is for "work teams," what features of this transfer to learning units? How does the context translate to active learning environments? %% ## Sources: Alinier, G., & Oriot, D. (2022). Simulation-based education: Deceiving learners with good intent. _Advances in Simulation_, _7_(1), 8. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00206-3](https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00206-3) Bajaj, K., Minors, A., Walker, K., Meguerdichian, M., & Patterson, M. (2018). “No-Go Considerations” for In Situ Simulation Safety. _Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare_, _13_(3), 221–224. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000301](https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000301) Bock, L. (2015). _Work rules! Insights from inside Google that will transform how you live and lead_ (First edition). Twelve. Cheng, A., Eppich, W., Epps, C., Kolbe, M., Meguerdichian, M., & Grant, V. (2021). Embracing informed learner self-assessment during debriefing: The art of plus-delta. _Advances in Simulation_, _6_(1), 22. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-021-00173-1](https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-021-00173-1) Cheng, A., Morse, K. J., Rudolph, J., Arab, A. A., Runnacles, J., & Eppich, W. (2016). Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development. _Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare_, _11_(1), 32–40. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000136](https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000136) Cheng, A., Palaganas, J., Eppich, W., Rudolph, J., Robinson, T., & Grant, V. (2015). Co-debriefing for Simulation-based Education: A Primer for Facilitators. _Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare_, _10_(2), 69–75. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000077](https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000077) DRVICTORIABRAZIL. (2019, October 29). _The value of being valued – Going beyond “Good job!”_ ICE Blog. [https://icenetblog.royalcollege.ca/2019/10/29/the-value-of-being-valued-going-beyond-good-job/](https://icenetblog.royalcollege.ca/2019/10/29/the-value-of-being-valued-going-beyond-good-job/) Edmondson, A. C. (2019). _The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth_. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Chadha, N. (2020). Teaching 2.0: What’s Growth Mindset and Psychological Safety Got to Do with It? _Journal of Academic Ophthalmology_, _12_(01), e20–e21. [https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1703017](https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1703017) Guinea, S., Andersen, P., Reid-Searl, K., Levett-Jones, T., Dwyer, T., Heaton, L., Flenady, T., Applegarth, J., & Bickell, P. (2019). Simulation-based learning for patient safety: The development of the Tag Team Patient Safety Simulation methodology for nursing education. _Collegian_, _26_(3), 392–398. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2018.09.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2018.09.008) Henricksen, J. W., Altenburg, C., & Reeder, R. W. (2017). Operationalizing Healthcare Simulation Psychological Safety: A Descriptive Analysis of an Intervention. _Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare_, _12_(5), 289–297. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000253](https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000253) Hughes, P. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2022). _Briefing Prior to Simulation Activit_. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545234](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545234) Johnson, C. E., & Leech, M. (2022). Co-designing for success: Fostering psychological safety with learners to optimise learning, collaboration and performance. _Medical Education_, _56_(3), 242–244. [https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14723](https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14723) Kolbe, M., Eppich, W., Rudolph, J., Meguerdichian, M., Catena, H., Cripps, A., Grant, V., & Cheng, A. (2020). Managing psychological safety in debriefings: A dynamic balancing act. _BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning_, _6_(3), 164–171. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000470](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000470) Kostovich, C. T., O’Rourke, J., & Stephen, L.-A. (2020). Establishing psychological safety in simulation: Faculty perceptions. _Nurse Education Today_, _91_, 104468. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104468](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104468) Lecomte, F., & Jaffrelot, M. (2019). Prebriefing and Briefing. In _Clinical Simulation_ (pp. 471–482). Elsevier. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815657-5.00034-6](https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815657-5.00034-6) McClintock, A. H., Fainstad, T. L., & Jauregui, J. (2022). Clinician Teacher as Leader: Creating Psychological Safety in the Clinical Learning Environment for Medical Students. _Academic Medicine_, _97_(11S), S46–S53. [https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004913](https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004913) McDermott, D. S. (2016). The Prebriefing Concept: A Delphi Study of CHSE Experts. _Clinical Simulation in Nursing_, _12_(6), 219–227. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.02.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.02.001) McDermott, D. S., Ludlow, J., Horsley, E., & Meakim, C. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM Prebriefing: Preparation and Briefing. _Clinical Simulation in Nursing_, _58_, 9–13. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.008) O’donovan, R., & Mcauliffe, E. (2020). A systematic review of factors that enable psychological safety in healthcare teams. _International Journal for Quality in Health Care_, _32_(4), 240–250. [https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa025](https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa025) Page-Cutrara, K., & Turk, M. (2017). Impact of prebriefing on competency performance, clinical judgment and experience in simulation: An experimental study. _Nurse Education Today_, _48_, 78–83. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.09.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.09.012) Purdy, E., Borchert, L., El-Bitar, A., Isaacson, W., Bills, L., & Brazil, V. (2022). Taking simulation out of its “safe container”—Exploring the bidirectional impacts of psychological safety and simulation in an emergency department. _Advances in Simulation_, _7_(1), 5. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00201-8](https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00201-8) Roussin, C. J., Larraz, E., Jamieson, K., Maestre, J. (2018) Psychological Safety, Self-Efficacy, and Speaking Up in Interprofessional Health Care Simulation. _Clinical Simulation in Nursing_, 17, 38-46. Rudolph, J. W., Raemer, D. B., & Simon, R. (2014). Establishing a Safe Container for Learning in Simulation: The Role of the Presimulation Briefing. _Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare_, _9_(6), 339–349. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000047](https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000047) Rutherford-Hemming, T., Lioce, L., & Breymier, T. (2019). Guidelines and Essential Elements for Prebriefing. _Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare_, _14_(6), 409–414. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000403](https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000403) Sharoff, L. (2015). Simulation: Pre-briefing Preparation, Clinical Judgment and Reflection. What is the Connection? _Journal of Contemporary Medicine_, _5_(2). [https://doi.org/10.16899/ctd.49922](https://doi.org/10.16899/ctd.49922) Somerville, S. G., Harrison, N. M., & Lewis, S. A. (2023). Twelve tips for the pre-brief to promote psychological safety in simulation-based education. _Medical Teacher_, 1–8. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2214305](https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2214305) Stephenson, E., & Poore, J. (2016). Tips for Conducting the Pre-Brief for a Simulation. _The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing_, _47_(8), 353–355. [https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20160715-05](https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20160715-05) Weidman, J., & Baker, K. (2015). The Cognitive Science of Learning: Concepts and Strategies for the Educator and Learner. _Anesthesia & Analgesia_, _121_(6), 1586–1599. [https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000890](https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000890) Weimer, M. (2013). _Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice_ (Second edition). Jossey-Bass. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. _Administrative Science Quarterly_, _44_(2), 350–383. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999](https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999)