Skip to content

Evaluation of the ‘Freedom to Speak Up Local Guardians’ in NHS England Acute and Mental Health Trusts

Evaluation of the implementation and normalisation of ‘Freedom to Speak Up Local Guardians’ in NHS England Acute and Mental Health Trusts

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN38163690
Enrollment
100
Registered
2018-09-13
Start date
2018-10-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2022-11-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Patient safety and employee 'speaking-up' Not Applicable

Interventions

The research study is planned over 27 months in 3 discrete but related work packages: Work Package (WP) 1: A review of literature that investigates different approaches used to encour

Sponsors

Cardiff University
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: In phase 2 (telephone interviews) of the study the participants have to be a current Freedom to Speak Up Guardian (FTSUG). In phase 3 (case studies) purposive sampling will be used to identify key informants, documents and stakeholders who are involved in the oversight and delivery of the FTSUG role and any related speak up initiatives. Snowball sampling will be used to include a sample of those employees who have spoken up via the FTSUG. However, interviewing FTSUGs and those that have engaged with FTSUGs offers only a limited perspective about the LG role, and the culture of speaking up. Therefore, the trialists will also recruit, via snowball sampling, those who may have raised concerns through other channels (e.g. a Trade Union), but have not been in contact with the FTSUG, and/or those who may not have spoken up about concerns, thus providing a better understanding why some may not have yet engaged with the FTSUG role. The views of others involved in employee concerns will offer invaluable insights into coordination, cooperation and commitment to the FTSUG role, as well as other insights, such as whether the implementation of the FTSUG role has displaced, for better or worse, historically effective ways of informally or formally raising and responding to concerns.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Does not meet inclusion criteria

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Phase 2 (Oct 2018 -May 2019) – interviews with guardians and national policy leaders (n=110) including respondent demographics, organisation size and CQC rating, examples of barriers/enablers to operationalizing the role and effective response to concerns, numbers, types and severity of concerns raised since FTSUG post created. Phase 3 (April 2019-December 2019) – interviews in 6 case study sites with various NHS staff (n=120), observations of practice, documentary analysis e.g. observe certain aspects of the FTSUG role e.g. delivering ‘speaking up’ training and advice to staff, reviewing concerns with colleagues and other FTSUGs within the organisation, attending meetings internally. Documentary analysis of relevant organisational policies, internal communications, reports/investigations undertaken by LGs and reports prepared for the Trust Board on concerns raised by staff and the organisation’s cultures.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
There are no secondary outcome measures

Countries

United Kingdom, Wales

Contacts

Public ContactAled Jones
FTSUGproject@cardiff.ac.uk+44 (0)2920687061

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 11, 2026