The Insulin Near-Miss
In a 30-bed surgical ward, a registered nurse draws up 100 units of insulin instead of 10 for a post-operative patient. The chart passes through four sets of hands over 25 minutes. A junior nurse checks the drug against the chart but assumes the prescribing doctor has already double-checked the dose, and says nothing. A second nurse notices the number looks high, but sees the charge nurse nearby and stays quiet, reasoning that if it were a problem someone senior would have flagged it. A pharmacist queries the handwriting and is told by the doctor, 'it's fine, I wrote it, we're behind schedule'. The charge nurse, who has 22 years' experience and is known to be blunt, is hurrying to theatre and does not look closely. The error is caught when the patient's daughter, visiting, asks why the dose is ten times what her mother had last time. The ward's annual safety-culture survey scores 4.4 out of 5. The incident review concludes that 'more mandatory training' is needed.
1. Choose the two social psychological explanations that best account for why nobody spoke up, and justify your choices over the plausible alternatives.
Read the worked answer
Explanation 1: diffusion of responsibility, sharpened by pluralistic ignorance. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when responsibility for acting is spread across several people, so each person feels less personally accountable and assumes someone else will act. Four people handled the chart, and the junior nurse's reasoning - 'someone more senior must have checked' - is a textbook instance. Pluralistic ignorance adds the interpretive layer: the second nurse read the absence of alarm on other faces as evidence that nothing was wrong. Each person was using everyone else's calm as their information source, and the calm was itself produced by the same reasoning in everyone. This is why a group can be collectively blind while every individual is privately uneasy.
Explanation 2: authority and normative social influence under a hierarchy. The pharmacist did raise it, and was overruled by the doctor's status and the appeal to time pressure. That is obedience to a legitimate authority compounded by a norm of not challenging senior colleagues in front of others. The charge nurse's known bluntness and seniority raised the social cost of speaking for the second nurse - speaking up would have meant publicly questioning someone with 22 years' experience.
Why these beat the alternatives. Groupthink is a poor fit: it describes a cohesive group deliberating toward a shared decision, with insulation, a directive leader and pressure toward consensus. Here there was no group, no deliberation and no shared decision - just a sequence of individuals each making a private judgement, which is precisely why social loafing and groupthink do not capture the mechanism. Social loafing concerns reduced effort when individual contribution is unidentifiable in a pooled task; nobody here was loafing - the junior nurse did check, she simply did not escalate. The failure is in the speaking, not the checking, and that is a diffusion and norm problem.
2. Explain why the safety-culture score of 4.4 out of 5 is compatible with what happened, and what this implies about how 'culture' should be measured.
Read the worked answer
A 4.4 does not mean the survey is wrong. It means the survey is measuring something other than what the reviewers assume.
What the survey measures. Likely items - 'safety is a priority on this ward', 'I would report an error' - ask people to endorse general propositions about themselves and their workplace. These attract socially desirable answers, particularly in a small, identifiable ward where staff know the results will be discussed. Staff can sincerely believe safety is a priority and still not challenge a consultant at 4 pm when theatre is waiting.
The gap between espoused attitudes and behaviour under pressure. Behaviour is generated in the moment by cues: time pressure, hierarchy, the presence of a senior person, whether anyone else looks worried. A questionnaire administered in a quiet staffroom removes every one of those cues. It measures the person's theory of themselves, not their behaviour in the situation.
A level-of-analysis problem. 'Safety culture' is a property of the system - the routines, the division of responsibility, the leadership signalling - not an average of private attitudes. Aggregating individual scores cannot detect that no one was formally responsible for the double-check, which is the actual cause of this near-miss.
Implication for measurement. Measure behaviour, not attitudes: audit double-check compliance, count near-miss reports per 100 admissions, run in-situ simulation and observe who speaks up, and check whether staff can name the person responsible for each check. Also examine the distribution rather than the mean - a high average can hide a minority who do not feel safe, and it is often that minority who see the errors.
3. Recommend one intervention and explain the mechanism by which it should change behaviour, and why it should outperform more mandatory training.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: introduce a named, scripted 'stop the line' protocol for high-risk medications, combined with an explicit allocation of the double-check.
Concretely: the insulin chart carries a box naming the person responsible for the independent second check, and that person signs it; any staff member can invoke a standard graded-assertiveness script - for example 'I'm concerned', then 'I'm uncomfortable', then 'this is a safety issue, I need you to stop' - and this script is used by consultants as well as juniors, so invoking it is routine rather than personal. The consultant is explicitly included in the protocol.
Mechanism 1: it removes diffusion. A named signatory converts a shared responsibility into an individual one. There is no longer a plausible inference that someone else has already checked, because the chart specifies who has.
Mechanism 2: it lowers the social cost of speaking up. The script does not require the junior to assert that a senior is wrong. It requires them to say a standard phrase that everyone says, which repositions the act from personal challenge to protocol compliance. That directly targets normative influence and the authority gradient.
Mechanism 3: it addresses pluralistic ignorance by making concern public and legible. Because the script is normal and expected, saying it conveys information rather than implying incompetence.
Why not just mandatory training. Training targets individual knowledge, but knowledge was not the deficit - the second nurse already noticed the dose looked high. Training also tends to reinforce the message that errors are individual failures, which increases the incentive to stay silent. It does not alter the situation that produced the silence. Interventions that change the situation - named responsibility, standard scripts, leaders modelling use of the script - are more likely to generalise, because they work through the cues that actually drive behaviour in the moment. Behavioural indicators, not attitude scores, should be used to evaluate it.