Organisational learning, or organised irresponsibility? Risk, opacity and lesson learning about mental health related deaths

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Risk & Society Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI:10.1080/13698575.2023.2201292
D. Baker, Dana Norris, L. Newman, Veroniki Cherneva
{"title":"Organisational learning, or organised irresponsibility? Risk, opacity and lesson learning about mental health related deaths","authors":"D. Baker, Dana Norris, L. Newman, Veroniki Cherneva","doi":"10.1080/13698575.2023.2201292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines how deaths related to mental health in England and Wales are investigated and the extent to which lessons are learned in their aftermath. It uses two concepts from academic literature to discuss organisational responses to these deaths: organisational learning, and organised irresponsibility. Organisational learning stresses the importance of learning lessons from data; in contrast, Beck’s concept of organised irresponsibility states that organisational lesson learning is impeded by the fragmented and risk-averse nature of public institutions. The article considers 210 organisational responses to Reports to Prevent Future Deaths (PFDs) issued by Coroners. PFDs are sent to any organisation Coroners believe could act to prevent future deaths. The article identifies three findings: Firstly, organisations tend to produce generic responses rather than addressing specific issues raised by Coroners. Second, organisations tend to cite existing policies as responses to Coroners despite those policies not preventing specific deaths. Third, institutions seek to displace blame onto other organisations in attempting to avoid accepting responsibility for the death. The article adds to the canon of knowledge on deaths in healthcare, and in the care of the state by identifying significant structural weaknesses that impede organisational lesson learning about preventable deaths.","PeriodicalId":47341,"journal":{"name":"Health Risk & Society","volume":"50 1","pages":"268 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Risk & Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2023.2201292","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This article examines how deaths related to mental health in England and Wales are investigated and the extent to which lessons are learned in their aftermath. It uses two concepts from academic literature to discuss organisational responses to these deaths: organisational learning, and organised irresponsibility. Organisational learning stresses the importance of learning lessons from data; in contrast, Beck’s concept of organised irresponsibility states that organisational lesson learning is impeded by the fragmented and risk-averse nature of public institutions. The article considers 210 organisational responses to Reports to Prevent Future Deaths (PFDs) issued by Coroners. PFDs are sent to any organisation Coroners believe could act to prevent future deaths. The article identifies three findings: Firstly, organisations tend to produce generic responses rather than addressing specific issues raised by Coroners. Second, organisations tend to cite existing policies as responses to Coroners despite those policies not preventing specific deaths. Third, institutions seek to displace blame onto other organisations in attempting to avoid accepting responsibility for the death. The article adds to the canon of knowledge on deaths in healthcare, and in the care of the state by identifying significant structural weaknesses that impede organisational lesson learning about preventable deaths.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有组织的学习,还是有组织的不负责任?与精神卫生有关的死亡的风险、不透明和经验教训
本文考察了英格兰和威尔士与心理健康相关的死亡是如何调查的,以及在他们的后果中吸取教训的程度。它使用了学术文献中的两个概念来讨论组织对这些死亡的反应:组织学习和组织不负责任。组织学习强调从数据中吸取教训的重要性;相比之下,贝克的有组织不负责任的概念指出,公共机构的碎片化和风险厌恶性质阻碍了组织的教训学习。这篇文章考虑了210个组织对验尸官发布的预防未来死亡报告的回应。pfd被送到任何验尸官认为可以采取行动防止未来死亡的组织。文章确定了三个发现:首先,组织倾向于产生一般的回应,而不是解决验尸官提出的具体问题。其次,组织倾向于引用现有政策作为对验尸官的回应,尽管这些政策并不能防止具体的死亡。第三,机构试图将责任推到其他组织身上,以避免对死亡承担责任。本文通过确定阻碍组织学习可预防死亡的重大结构性弱点,增加了关于医疗保健和国家护理中死亡的知识标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed. Public awareness of risk is associated with the development of high profile media debates about specific risks. Although risk issues arise in a variety of areas, such as technological usage and the environment, they are particularly evident in health. Not only is health a major issue of personal and collective concern, but failure to effectively assess and manage risk is likely to result in health problems.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for mental health and wellness: children’s perspectives from five Majority World Countries The role of trust in government and risk perception in adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures: survey findings among young people in Luxembourg Reassessing social trust: gossip, self-policing, and Covid-19 risk communication in Norway Organisational learning, or organised irresponsibility? Risk, opacity and lesson learning about mental health related deaths The “risk object” of cannabis edibles: perspectives from young adults in Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1