Expressing concerns to colleagues or handling difficult behaviour can be challenging. Dr James Thorpe and Dr Sarah Coope, Senior Medical Educators at Medical Protection, provide some insights that may help to
navigate stressful conversations at work
Since the start of the pandemic, Medical Protection has received numerous requests for advice from doctors that relate to medico-legal topics such as remote consulting or working safely outside your comfort zone. Perhaps unsurprisingly, some doctors have also contacted us following difficult interactions with their colleagues.
For instance, there have been disagreements regarding the adequacy of personal protective equipment – how should you manage a conversation with a colleague when you have a difference of opinion over such a vital and emotive safety issue?
Redeployment is another area which has generated friction. For example, a trainee in psychiatry being asked to work in acute medicine may feel that what they are being asked to do is very challenging. Many doctors are working outside of their normal area of expertise and doing what they can to support the Covid-19 effort, so expressing concerns about redeployment is not easy.
Clearly working during the pandemic has been and continues to be highly stressful for all healthcare staff. It is useful to consider factors that may contribute to difficult interactions in this environment, self-management in such situations and key communication skills that can help to bring about resolution.
So firstly, why are difficult interactions particularly relevant during the current pandemic?
The Yerkes-Dodson law from over 100 years ago still stands – when we are under significant stress, it usually negatively affects our performance.
This includes how we interact with others and so there’s a greater chance that we, and our colleagues, may behave in a less optimal way. This leads to a higher chance of conflict, which creates even more stress and we can find ourselves on a downward spiral.
There are various factors that can contribute to difficult interactions and these can be grouped into four themes.
You may have heard the acronym HALTED (hungry, angry, late, tired, energy being low, distracted). Any of these factors could lead to our own communication being sub-optimal when interacting with a colleague.
Although we can influence certain factors, the only thing we really have direct control over is ourselves.
In a difficult interaction it is easy to let our emotions take over and we may end up regretting something we have said or done. For example, we may react defensively and reply with a sharp retort or verbal attack to someone’s comment.
Perhaps we don’t really listen, interrupting the other person or dismissing their viewpoint. Prof Steve Peters wrote in his book The Chimp Paradox that in a conflict or disagreement, we have a choice to either react or respond, whether we’re aware of this or not.
Reacting is automatic, and it occurs at a primitive limbic level – the unhelpful fight/flight/freeze behaviours. This can seemingly happen before it feels like we’ve had time to think, because it has become unconscious due to repeated practice.
But it is possible to respond instead, even with the same trigger. This needs to happen at a more conscious, logical level – using our neocortex. It gives us a greater chance of behaving in a more constructive, positive way.
It may seem easier said than done, especially in the heat of the moment. A book called Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson and Joseph Grenny discusses this in more detail and talks about our internal ‘path to action’.
Firstly, we should ask ourselves what is behind the behaviour, or action. It starts with how we perceive a situation or person, what we notice or observe happening, what we see or hear and then focus on.
This then leads to us telling ourselves a story, making sense of what we’ve perceived and drawing a conclusion from what we’ve observed. For example, when we see another person rolling their eyes, or hear them sighing in an exasperated way, or telling us that we are ‘wrong’, we may tell ourselves a range of stories (eg, “they obviously don’t respect me”/ “they are so impatient”/“they always think they’re right”).
What conclusion you draw depends on your existing relationship with that person, your past experience of their behaviour, and your current state of mind.
There is always more than one way to look at a situation and interpret it. What we tell ourselves then leads to our emotional reaction which affects our actions and behaviour at the end of the path.
The things that we observe in the situation and in the other person’s behaviour can be an emotional ‘trigger’ for us – we call them ‘hot buttons’.
What triggers you will be different to what triggers others around you, as our hot buttons reflect our past personal experiences, prejudices, attitudes and values.
There are three critical steps in controlling and working with your hot buttons.
Step 1 is to recognise your usual automatic reaction. What do you tend to do without thinking when faced with a conflict? Do you tend to push back or back down?
How do you know this is about to happen? What are the early warning signs, eg, pulse racing, blushing, clenching your fists or feeling tearful.
In order to change this, you need to go back to firstly identifying what triggers this behaviour. What have you observed or perceived in others, and then what thoughts or story have you told yourself about this.
Step 2 is to engage your higher brain function to choose a more conscious, logical or rational response:
Step 3 is to learn from each interaction where a hot button has been pushed. By reflecting afterwards it reinforces the learning to help us respond more constructively the next time we are faced with a similar situation.
What if we’ve managed ourselves and responded logically and constructively, but conflict still develops? There are some key communication skills that can be useful to keep in mind in this situation:
If these approaches fail and you feel that you and/or patient care is at significant risk, it may be appropriate to seek a second opinion from a senior colleague or clinical lead to help resolve matters. It is important to carefully document any discussions that you have.
Seeking expert advice can be a difficult step, but the alternative is to allow patients and yourself to be exposed to unacceptable risk – including the risk of a challenge to your decision not to take action should there subsequently be an adverse patient outcome resulting from a communication failure.
Medical Protection, or your medical defence organisation, can also be an important source of advice as you seek ways to resolve issues with your colleague.
Claire Cregan, Legal Counsel in Medisec, outlines the statutory responsibilities placed on registered medical practitioners in...
Dr Vincent Maher, Consultant Cardiologist, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, told delegates that there could be up to...
An update to the Covid-19 vaccination programme as a result of the threat posed by the...
There is “no central collation” of data on Covid-19 staff derogations during the pandemic in either...