Skip to main content
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Interventions to address unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute care: what works for whom and why? A realist review



Unprofessional behaviour (UB) between staff encompasses various behaviours, including incivility, microaggressions, harassment, and bullying. UB is pervasive in acute healthcare settings and disproportionately impacts minoritised staff. UB has detrimental effects on staff wellbeing, patient safety and organisational resources. While interventions have been implemented to mitigate UB, there is limited understanding of how and why they may work and for whom.


This study utilised a realist review methodology with stakeholder input to improve understanding of these complex context-dependent interventions. Initial programme theories were formulated drawing upon scoping searches and reports known to the study team. Purposive systematic searches were conducted to gather grey and published global literature from databases. Documents were selected if relevant to UB in acute care settings while considering rigour and relevance. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories.


Of 2977 deduplicated records, 148 full text reports were included with 42 reports describing interventions to address UB in acute healthcare settings. Interventions drew on 13 types of behaviour change strategies and were categorised into five types of intervention (1) single session (i.e. one off); (2) multiple session; (3) single or multiple sessions combined with other actions (e.g. training sessions plus a code of conduct); (4) professional accountability and reporting programmes and; (5) structured culture change interventions. We formulated 55 context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how, why, and when these interventions work. We identified twelve key dynamics to consider in intervention design, including importance of addressing systemic contributors, rebuilding trust in managers, and promoting a psychologically safe culture; fifteen implementation principles were identified to address these dynamics.


Interventions to address UB are still at an early stage of development, and their effectiveness to reduce UB and improve patient safety is unclear. Future interventions should incorporate knowledge from behavioural and implementation science to affect behaviour change; draw on multiple concurrent strategies to address systemic contributors to UB; and consider the undue burden of UB on minoritised groups.

Study registration

This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO):

Peer Review reports


Unprofessional behaviours (UB) can be defined as “any interpersonal behaviour by staff that causes distress or harm to other staff in the healthcare workplace” (Aunger J, Abrams R, Westbrook J, Wright J, Pearson M, Jones A, et al:  Why do acute healthcare staff behave unprofessionally towards each other and how can these behaviours be reduced? A realist review, forthcoming). These encompass a range of actions such as incivility, microaggressions, harassment and bullying. Such behaviours persist within healthcare systems globally [1, 2]. Rates differ significantly between countries and contexts; e.g. data from Australia across seven hospitals showed 38.8% of 5178 staff respondents reported experiencing UB on a frequent (weekly or more) basis during the past year, with 14.5% experiencing extreme events such as physical assault [1]. Similarly, in a hospital in Portugal, prevalence of bullying has been found to be 8% [3], and, in Italy, prevalence has been found to be 12.3% for males but 16.4% for females [4]. There are numerous recent scandals in the United Kingdom’s (UK) National Health Service (NHS) that further demonstrate its prevalence. For instance, a 2023 investigation into clinical safety at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust revealed a pervasive culture of “bullying and toxicity” which had adverse effects on patient care [5]. Similar problems were observed at the East of England Ambulance Service Trust from 2020–2021, which faced monitoring by the Equality and Human Rights Commission due to widespread sexual harassment and abuse [6]. UB has been described as an unaddressed crisis in healthcare (Aunger JA, Abrams R, Westbrook J, Mannion R, Jones A, Pearson M, et al: Unprofessional behaviour between acute healthcare staff: an unaddressed UK crisis, submitted) [7], and one which requires urgent action and further research [2].

Patient care is being jeopardized and staff psychological wellbeing negatively affected by the widespread occurrence of UB [2]. UB in acute healthcare settings can impair communication and concentration, reduce trust in teams, cause a loss of confidence in work ability for staff, and reduce psychological safety [8]. All these factors can lessen the sharing of important patient information, allowing medical errors to go unchallenged and reducing patient safety [9,10,11]. Illustrating this, a comprehensive retrospective cohort study conducted in the USA examined the data of 200 surgeons and 13,653 of their patients [12]. Results revealed that patients whose surgeons had a greater number of co-worker reports for UB had a significantly increased risk of experiencing surgical and medical complications. Patients whose surgeons had received 1–3 reports of UB within the 36 months preceding the operation faced a 14.3% higher risk of complications, while those whose surgeons had accumulated 4 or more reports faced an 11.9% higher risk [12]. Similar results have been reported when incivility scenarios are simulated [10].

UB between healthcare staff can also negatively impact staff psychological wellbeing [12, 13]. For those who are targeted by or who witness UB, it can result in alienation, depression, and, in severe cases, even suicidal thoughts [14]. This loss of wellbeing can lead staff to take sick leave or leave the organisation or profession entirely [13]. Indeed, bullying and harassment have been cited as one of the primary reasons for the current workforce crisis, with a recent report suggesting 49% of healthcare staff who have experienced UB are seeking another job outside of their organisations or healthcare as soon as possible [15, 16].

Such staff turnover can have significant economic implications [13]. A cautious estimate suggests that the cost of UB to the UK’s NHS amounted to approximately £2.28 billion per year when considering factors such as sickness absence, employee turnover, reduced productivity, compensation and litigation costs. This is equivalent to 1.52% of the NHS’ budget for 2019/2020 [13]. In the USA, replacing staff due to UB, can, for example, cost between $22,000 and $64,000 per nurse [17]; similarly, an estimate of the combined costs for disruptive physician behaviours (e.g. due to turnover, medical and procedural errors) in a 400-bed hospital was found to exceed $1 million.

Prevalence of reported UB varies across different staff members and groups. Data from the UK NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard in 2022 shows that a higher percentage of black, minority, and ethnic (BME) respondents experienced UB compared to their white counterparts, particularly when it originated from managers [18]. Staff members with long-term health conditions or illnesses were also more affected by UB from co-workers [18, 19] and a systematic review including studies looking at prevalence of UB between healthcare staff suggests that more studies find that women are more frequently targets than males [20]. Despite increased attention towards addressing misogyny, racism, and discrimination through social movements like #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter, there has been little improvement in the experiences of NHS staff between 2018 and 2022. Indeed, discrimination, as reported in the NHS Staff Survey, has been identified as the primary reason for staff leaving NHS hospitals, and thereby contributing to the ongoing NHS workforce crisis [21].

There have been previous attempts to address widespread UB. Several studies have sought to collate and understand interventions to reduce UB in [22] and outside of healthcare [23]. However, existing reviews have focused on only one particular type of UB, such as bullying [22], and their applicability to acute healthcare settings may be limited [24]. Interventions have been implemented in a range of contexts using many different types of approach [22, 25, 26]. Additionally, interventions and the behaviour change strategies they use are often poorly described with insufficient explanation of how and why they are intended to work (see Table 3 below) [26]. Therefore, in this article, we draw on realist methodology to open the ‘black box’ of a heterogenous group of interventions, implemented in complex healthcare systems. In doing so, we synthesise evidence on how interventions to address UB between staff in acute care may work, why and whom they benefit.


Rationale for, and use of, realist methods

Realist reviews seek to understand why an intervention may work in one context but not another. This involves building an understanding of how various contextual factors affect the activation of mechanisms (i.e. changes in participant reasoning) to produce various outcomes [27]. Often, these relationships are not well articulated in the literature, so realist research uses retroductive reasoning (“identification of hidden causal forces that lie behind identified patterns or changes in those patterns” (Maben J, Taylor C, Jagosh J, Carrieri D, Briscoe S, Klepacz N, et al: Care Under Pressure 2: Caring for the Carers – a realist review of interventions to minimise the incidence of mental ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics. Health and Social Care Delivery Research, forthcoming)) to unpack this information, drawing on ‘hunches’ as well as inductive and deductive reasoning to ask “why do things appear as they do?” [28]. The aim is to build programme theories depicted through context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs), representing an understanding of how different interventions and strategies may be used in different contexts. This is done by first developing an initial programme theory representing how and why an intervention may work, before drawing on a wider body of literature to test and refine findings against this initial theory [29, 30].

This review followed the Realist and Meta-Review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards [31]. The protocol for this review is published [9], and this article comprises part of a larger realist review which also considers the contributors to UB, the findings of which are forthcoming (Aunger J, Abrams R, Westbrook J, Wright J, Pearson M, Jones A, et al:  Why do acute healthcare staff behave unprofessionally towards each other and how can these behaviours be reduced? A realist review, forthcoming).


The aim of this review was to “Identify interventions and strategies designed to mitigate, manage, and prevent unprofessional behaviours and formulate programme theories to describe how, why and in what circumstances these work, and whom they benefit”.

Review process

The following sections refer to terms commonly used in realist methodology which are further explained and defined below (Table 1).

Table 1 Definitions of realist concepts

Our review process comprised six main steps as per our protocol [9] (Fig. 2) also outlined below:

  • (1) Building initial programme theories. We drew on literature searches of organisational sites including NHS England, King’s Fund, BMA, HCPC, and NHS Employers websites, as well as literature already known to the study team and from the study protocol. Reports were read in depth and data regarding strategies from this step were imported and organised in NVivo12, enabling us to understand the range and scope of strategies used to tackle UB in acute healthcare settings [35]. We then interrogated these sources to build initial CMOCs regarding how, why, and for whom each strategy worked in different contexts. As part of this process, we developed ‘if, then, because’ statements; these were discussed by team members and presented to stakeholders for refinement (Fig. 2). Initial theories are presented in Additional File 1.

  • (2) Searching for evidence. From November 2021 to December 2022, we performed systematic, purposive searches for literature on Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases and grey literature on HMIC, NICE Evidence Search, Patient Safety Network, Google and Google Scholar databases, and NHS Employers and NHS Health Education England websites. Unlike in systematic reviews, grey literature is often included as part of realist reviews, because such sources often provide important data for forming programme theories regarding how and why interventions may work in different contexts [31]. Full details of the Search process and Search Strategy are in Additional File 2.

  • (3) Article selection. Records were screened according to inclusion criteria, rigour and relevance. Screening of 90% of search results was undertaken by JAA and a 10% random sub-sample was reviewed independently for quality control by both RA and JAA at title and abstract, full text and relevancy stages. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion between JAA, RA and JM. Title and abstract screening was performed using software ( and full texts screened using Mendeley (Mendeley Ltd.) [36]. Further, we applied conceptual richness standards to include the most theoretically useful literature using adapted criteria from Pearson et al. [37]. Inclusion criteria were as follows (Table 2):

  • Decisions regarding inclusion were based on the criteria (Table 2), relevance (based on both the major/minor criteria below and the ability to inform programme theories) and rigour [38]. Rigour was assessed by evaluating the level of detail describing the methods used, and how generalisable and trustworthy their findings were based on those methods in line with the latest guidance [30, 38].

    Table 2 Inclusion criteria
  • Our formal criteria for classifying the potential conceptual richness of reports are below. To be included, studies must have:

    • Contributed to the study aims and are conducted in an NHS context; or,

    • Contributed to the study aims and are conducted in contexts with similarities to the NHS (e.g. universal, publicly-funded healthcare systems); or,

    • Been conducted in non-UK healthcare systems that are markedly different to the NHS (e.g. fee-for-service, private insurance scheme systems) but where the mechanisms causing or moderating UBs could plausibly operate in the context of those working in the NHS.

  • (4) Data extraction. PDF files for all reports were imported into NVivo12 software (QSR International), which was used as a data sorting and categorisation tool using both inductive and deductive code creation [35, 39]. Codes were created for entries for each identified strategy type to enable ease of theory creation based on relevant data excerpts (Fig. 1). Other important excerpts were extracted separately into a Word document where demi-regularities were identified across studies. Furthermore, key characteristics of included reports were transferred into an Excel spreadsheet.

  • (5) Synthesis. We compared, contrasted, reconciled, adjudicated and consolidated different sources of evidence using realist logic of analysis to build an understanding of which contexts affect how interventions work, and why. Identifying demi-regularities (or “semi-predictable patterns or pathways of programme functioning” (Maben J, Taylor C, Jagosh J, Carrieri D, Briscoe S, Klepacz N, et al: Care Under Pressure 2: Caring for the Carers – a realist review of interventions to minimise the incidence of mental ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics. Health and Social Care Delivery Research, forthcoming)) across studies enabled us to categorise, by common underlying mechanisms, strategies to address UB. It also enabled us to identify Key Dynamics and Implementation Principles that can impact their success of interventions.

  • (6) Testing and refining programme theories. Theories were tested against additional identified literature. At this stage, programme theories from Step 1 were either confirmed, refuted, or newly identified and added to our analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Example code structure in NVivo

Changes to methodology since study protocol

There have been no significant changes since publication of our study protocol [9]. Where flexibility was built into our protocol (e.g. with the relevancy criteria), the reporting of methods in this paper has been updated to reflect the final methods used.

Stakeholder and patient and public involvement

Stakeholder feedback was also incorporated at five stages (Fig. 2) using the following process: (1) documenting theory presentation to stakeholders for refinement; (2) documenting suggested alterations; (3) performing purposive searching to sense-check non-aligned suggestions; (4) discussing discrepancies within the team to determine consensus and action taken; (5) re-presenting changes made to stakeholders/group for further sense-checking (e.g. using “you said, we did” summaries at start of each stakeholder group meeting).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flow diagram for realist review process. Updated from Maben et al. [9]

Stakeholders and advisors came from relevant backgrounds including patients and members of the public from diverse backgrounds, members of regulatory bodies and trade unions in the UK, and healthcare professionals with lived experience of UB. When compared against the ACTIVE (Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE) framework for reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, our project has adhered to a continuous, multiple-time closed event approach in which stakeholders were able to influence the results of the review [40].


Document results

We included 38 reports in Step 1 [2, 10, 11, 14, 20, 22, 25, 26, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]. The exhaustive systematic search in Step 2 identified n = 8944 records, which reduced to n = 2977 when duplicates (n = 5967) were removed. Google search, team members and stakeholders identified further reports (n = 62). Updated searches in August 2022 resulted in 36 reports being added. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, full text and conceptual richness screening, and relevancy and rigour screening, 148 reports were included, comprising 38 for initial theory building and 110 for theory refinement [2, 25, 71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178]. Figure 3 depicts the document selection process and reports.

Fig. 3
figure 3

PRISMA-style diagram to depict document selection

Of the 148, 42 reported on an intervention in acute care. The other included reports such as editorials, reviews and qualitative pieces were further useful for theory generation, such as by identifying informal strategies to address UB (that were not yet tested in an intervention), and providing information on how UB may manifest, which was useful for answering other research questions in our wider review (Aunger J, Abrams R, Westbrook J, Wright J, Pearson M, Jones A, et al: Why do acute healthcare staff behave unprofessionally towards each other and how can these behaviours be reduced? A realist review, forthcoming).

Analysis of these 148 reports resulted in 55 CMOCs being inferred, tested and refined across areas of (1) intervention types and how they work, (2) strategies to change behaviour, (3) key dynamics and (4) implementation factors which impact how and when interventions work.

Document characteristics

Included reports focused predominantly on acute healthcare settings, comprising 37% of included reports. Studies in unspecified healthcare settings, e.g. reports that referred to simply ‘bullying in healthcare’, comprised 38.5%. Over 52% of reports were predominantly focused on the USA or UK. A further 24.3% were not linked to a specific geographical region (e.g. due to being editorials or reviews). In terms of UBs, reports were predominantly focused on bullying (n = 47,31.8%), incivility (n = 18, 12.2%), horizontal or lateral violence (n = 16, 10.8%), or tangential issues such as interpersonal collaboration and culture (n = 12, 8.1%) or UB (n = 9, 6.1%). Figure 4 depicts source characteristics.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Characteristics of included sources. One intervention paper which informed Step 1 was not included in the realist intervention analysis due to being conducted outside of acute care

Interventions and strategies seeking to address UB in acute care

This section outlines the interventions and strategies identified in the literature, and how and why they work.

Interventions versus strategies

In this paper, we refer to both interventions and strategies, defined in Table 3 (below).

Table 3 Understanding interventions and strategies

Interventions seeking to address UB in acute care

We identified 42 evaluations or descriptions of 42 interventions, all of which sought to address UB in acute healthcare settings. Of the interventions; 30 were conducted in the USA [73, 76, 78, 82, 86, 88, 89, 91,92,93, 95, 100, 101, 106, 111, 116, 120, 122, 125, 127, 129, 137, 141, 143, 156, 164, 165, 172, 174, 177, 178]; five in Australia [74, 108, 126, 160, 162]; two each in Canada [132, 169] and South Korea [83, 94]; and one in Turkey [144], Ireland [100] and Iran [154]. Iran and Turkey were the only low- or middle-income countries to report an intervention. We identified no studies reporting an intervention in the UK or in countries other than those mentioned above (e.g. in developing nations).

We classified the interventions into five types and formulated programme theories regarding how and why these interventions work. These are outlined in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Types of intervention identified in the literature and programme theories developed

Interventions were evaluated with different study designs. Sixteen used a pre-post design [73, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 111, 125,126,127, 137, 141, 143, 144, 172, 174], three used a pre-post design with a non-randomised control group [120, 156, 162], five other studies used a pre-post design with no control group, but with the addition of follow-up data collection [76, 93, 95, 106, 177], five used a randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial design [83, 94, 132, 154, 169] and thirteen were descriptive case studies or feasibility studies which did not formally evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions they reported [74, 78, 82, 100, 101, 108, 116, 122, 129, 160, 164, 165, 178]. Only n = 18 (43%) of interventions reported using any theoretical framework, of which n = 13 (31%) drew on psychological theories, and n = 5 (12%) on organisational theories.

With regard to effectiveness, thirteen of the 42 studies were descriptive, or examined only implementation or feasibility issues. Of the 29 studies that assessed intervention effectiveness to reduce UB, the majority (n = 23) reported some positive results, while three studies reported no significant change [89, 137, 162] and three reported a negative result [91, 93, 154]. The ‘negative’ results were due to the use of education strategies, whereby people became more active in reporting UB, leading to an increase in reports of UB after the intervention when compared to baseline [91, 93, 154]. Whether an increase in reports of UB is an indication of success or failure is discussed in the “Key dynamics impacting how and when interventions work” section below.

Of the 23 studies which reported some improvement in UB outcomes: nine out of 13 were single-session interventions, seven out of eight were multi-session interventions, two out of three were combined session interventions (although one did not report statistical significance), one of one was a professional accountability intervention, and all four structured culture change interventions reported improvement (see Additional File 3 identify these specific studies).

Studies used a wide range of outcome measures, with the most common being change in the prevalence of UB following implementation of the intervention (n = 23). No studies assessed improvements to patient safety or included an economic assessment. Seven studies assessed staff wellbeing or similar proxies such as turnover intention or burnout [83, 94, 108, 137, 156, 164, 169]. Further information regarding document characteristics and intervention study samples, durations, strategies, data collection timepoints, outcome measures, effectiveness and findings are depicted in Additional File 3.

Use of strategies in different intervention types

Interventions drew on a range of strategies to attempt to change behaviour or support efforts to do so (further details on the strategies are in the following sections). Most strategies were designed to prevent or reduce UB, except for implementation-aiding strategies, which were intended to support or improve effectiveness of other behaviour change strategies. While not entirely consistent, we identified patterns of use of strategies across different intervention types, which are highlighted in Additional File 4.

How, why, and for whom do strategies to address UB work?

The following section outlines the results of our realist analysis, split into sections detailing how strategies work, key dynamics and implementation principles.

We developed 13 categories of strategies by combining them according to common underlying mechanisms for how they are intended to work. For example, social norm-setting strategies work by setting an expectation for accepted behaviour in the workplace. This social norm-setting strategy category includes individual strategies such as championing, positive role-modelling, and codes of conduct. Table 5 sets out the range of strategies identified in this review, arranged by category, and provides an overview to contextualise our programme theories that follow.

Table 5 Strategies used to reduce, mitigate or prevent UB and associated programme theories. Evaluated and unevaluated strategies are highlighted separately

Some strategies were tested in the 42 interventions we outlined above, whereas others were not. Those that have been tested we refer to as ‘evaluated’. Strategies which have not yet been evaluated were reported in the 106 non-intervention reports we identified in the literature. These unevaluated strategies are presented in italics in Table 5.

As our analysis progressed, we identified that some strategies worked through shared underlying mechanisms. This enabled both creation of our categories of strategies as well as the shared programme theories for each category. The programme theories depicted in Table 5 set out how, and in which circumstances, use of various strategies are appropriate.

Key dynamics impacting how and when interventions work

We identified twelve Key Dynamics which explored common issues, contradictions, tensions or considerations identified as important to intervention design. These can be common pitfalls which lead to unintended consequences, ways to improve effectiveness, and important design trade-offs. Programme theories are presented for each to highlight how and why these dynamics work; and these can have positive (O +) or negative (O −) outcomes. Helping to tackle some of these key dynamics are fifteen Implementation Principles which will be explored in the next section.

Key Dynamic 1. Interventions need to address systemic factors that contribute to UB not only individual factors

Organisations were found to largely assume that individual, rather than systemic factors, were driving UB [20]. A focus on individual factors leaves systemic contributors unaddressed and can lead to implementation of interventions which do not tackle the root causes of UB. Interventions focusing on individuals, such as boosting individual resilience, awareness, or ability to speak up can have their effectiveness undermined when systemic contributors, such as tackling workplace culture or design, remain unaddressed, and continue to contribute to UB occurring [124]

CMOC 21: Addressing systemic contributors

If systemic issues such as understaffing, stress resulting from the way work is structured, and lack of resources are addressed at the same time as implementing an intervention (C), then interventions to address UB will have greater success (O +), because staff feel better-supported and psychological distress is reduced (M)

To depict the preponderance by intervention designers on individual factors, we have presented the 13 main categories of strategy to address UB according to whether the strategies seek to address Individual, Team, Organisational, Health System, or Societal-level issues (Fig. 5). The number of times which strategies were evaluated is depicted in brackets in the figure for each strategy (e.g. social norm strategies were evaluated 16 times in total) as well overall according to the level (e.g. Individual or Team) that they targeted. Figure 5 demonstrates that most evaluated strategies targeted individuals (e.g. to raise their awareness of UB) (n = 57), with organisational level the second-most frequent (n = 40). This highlights the extensive application of interventions focused on individual factors.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Interventions mapped according to their level of implementation. Numbers in brackets indicate the all the times strategies were evaluated within each category. Strategy categories that are mentioned more than once are reflected in different colours for ease of identification

Key Dynamic 2. Focusing on individual staff can have unintended consequences for psychological safety

When systems are implemented that seek to weed out ‘bad apples’, psychological safety is not improved, patient safety is unlikely to be positively impacted, and systemic issues (see Key Dynamic 1) remain unaddressed.

CMOC 22: Identifying bad apples

Top-down interventions focused on identifying problematic individuals (C) can lead to other/wider contributors of UB remaining unaddressed (O −) and have a negative effect on team cohesion (O2 −) because it can inhibit development of an open culture promoting psychological safety (M1) and increase retaliatory reporting (M2)


CMOC 23: Enhancing psychological safety

In an environment dominated by hierarchy and power dynamics, interventions which address systemic contributors to UB (e.g. by reorganising the workplace, increasing role clarity and improving worker decision-making) (C) can reduce UB more effectively (O +) because an open culture and psychological safety are fostered (M)

Key Dynamic 3. How and why an intervention is expected to work must be clear otherwise evaluations of interventions can be misleading

Existing studies have claimed success or failure based on intermediate outcomes such as ‘level of awareness’ of UB, or adjacent outcomes such as ‘assertiveness’. For example, four included interventions relying on reports of UB as their primary outcome measure were reported by their authors as being ‘unsuccessful’ due to an increase in reports of UB post-intervention when compared to controls [91, 93, 154, 162]. However, an increase in awareness and reports of UB should be considered a success from a behaviour change perspective. Use of logic models, unfortunately not presented by any included study, would help understand such relationships, and would be essential to improving fidelity of such evaluations and for getting closer to measuring actual improvements in UB.

CMOC 24. Need for comprehensive evaluation

If those responsible for developing and implementing a UB intervention clearly map out how it could work, draw on theory and invest in sufficient evaluation (C), then how it impacts patient safety, staff psychological wellbeing and marginalised staff groups can be determined (O +), because greater information regarding success can be determined (M)

Key Dynamic 4. Maintaining a focus on why it is important to reduce UB (e.g. to improve patient safety) is key when designing an intervention to reduce UB

It is important to remember that the primary reason to reduce UB should be to improve staff wellbeing and improve patient safety and quality of care. Improving the ability to speak up in the moment can be essential to improving patient safety [10, 11]. Implementing a reporting system which enables speaking up online at a later time may have no impact on patient safety, unless other strategies are implemented which improve psychological safety when it matters.

CMOC 25. Maintaining a focus on distal outcomes such as patient safety is important when designing an intervention to reduce UB

When interventions to reduce UB maintain a focus on improving patient safety (C), then the ability to challenge UB in the moment or speak up about medical mistakes is more likely to be improved (O +), because staff may feel more psychologically safe (M1), and a greater focus on patient safety may enhance engagement (M2) and improve culture change (M3)

Key Dynamic 5. Encouraging bystanders to intervene is important for culture change but can lead to moral injury

Encouraging bystanders to intervene sends signals that UB is unacceptable. However, creating an imperative to intervene can also lead to moral injury if staff do not subsequently intervene and feel guilty for not having done so. Further, intervening can place staff at risk of reprisal if performed in an unsafe organisational climate. Staff should be encouraged to intervene only when they feel safe and confident to do so.

CMOC 26. Encouraging bystander intervention successfully

Encouraging bystander intervention (C) can lead to UB being addressed in the moment (O +) and drive social norms to move towards civility (O2 +) because bystanders feel protected and able to act on their sense of moral duty to intervene (M2)

CMOC 27. Encouraging bystander intervention may lead to moral injury or reprisal

Encouraging bystander intervention (C) can cause moral injury to the bystander if they do not feel confident intervening (O −) or can lead to reprisal if intervening when it was not safe to do so (O2 −) because they may feel like they have failed in their moral duty to intervene (M)

Key Dynamic 6. Identifying unintended consequences of anonymous reporting systems is essential

Systems that enable speaking up anonymously can enhance ability to speak up even when feeling psychologically unsafe. However, anonymity can also increase ease of subversion of these systems through behaviours such as scapegoating, e.g. by filing false reports. This can be avoided with triage systems or databases.

CMOC 28: Misuse

Enabling anonymous reporting of colleagues (C) can lead to an increase in UB in the form of undermining and scapegoating (O-) because informal alliances and individuals can co-opt the reporting system to target specific individuals with false reports (M)


CMOC 29: Enabling speaking up

Enabling anonymous reporting of colleagues (C) can mean instigators are approached by messengers or line managers, directly reducing UB (O +) because recipients or witnesses of UB are able to speak up even when there are low levels of psychological safety (M)

Key Dynamic 7. Interventions must be perceived as authentic to foster trust in management

To assess whether it is worth trusting management to provide a safe working environment, healthcare staff will assess the authenticity of efforts that management make to reduce UB. If an intervention is not seen as authentic, staff may not take it seriously and will disengage. Authenticity can be lost if (1) managers are simultaneously engaging in negative behaviours and sending mixed signals, or (2) if the intervention itself is clearly inadequate for its intended purpose.

CMOC 30. Intervention perceived as authentic

When interventions are seen as authentic, and senior staff role model professional behaviour (C), then staff feel more able to buy into the intervention (O) because it is perceived as a legitimate attempt at reducing UB (M)


CMOC 31. Intervention perceived as inauthentic

If managers implement an intervention to address UB but continue to role-model or tolerate negative behaviours (C1) or the intervention content is perceived as unlikely to have any effect (C2) then staff will disengage from the intervention (O −) because staff received mixed signals about authenticity and may thus dismiss it as inauthentic (M)

Key Dynamic 8. One size does not fit all—tackling UB generally requires multiple and sustained interventions to address underlying contributors

Many interventions do not address systemic contributors; rather, they only seek to target one or two contributors (of many) for a limited length of time. However, the existence of this limited intervention may inhibit more comprehensive interventions from being developed and put in place because something is ‘already being done’ (although only partially) about the problem.

CMOC 32. Tackling UB requires multiple and sustained interventions

If an intervention does not address all UB contributors (C) this can allow UB to continue to develop (O −) and inhibit trust in management (O2 −) because contributors remain unaddressed and more comprehensive interventions to reduce UB are ignored (M)

Key Dynamic 9. Addressing manager behaviour is essential for building trust in management.

To be seen as genuine and to have adequate reach, interventions need to include managers and senior employees at all levels. This is especially important for those organisations where managers have been seen to engage or tolerate UB themselves and where trust in management is low.

CMOC 33: Participation

If managers include themselves as a recipient or target of an intervention (C) this can show that UB is no longer tolerated (O +) and can build trust in management (O2 +) because it signals to other employees that the intervention is genuine (M1) and suggests there is a real cultural shift taking place (M2)


CMOC 34: No participation

If managers do not include themselves as a recipient or target of the intervention (C) this can allow UB to continue (O −) and reduces trust in management (O2 −) because it signals to other employees that the intervention is unfair and/or managers are not taking it seriously (M1) and suggests there is no real cultural shift taking place (M2)

Key Dynamic 10. Interventions that are both inclusive and equitable are critical to ensure effectiveness and sustainability and for addressing inequalities

Minoritised groups, women and staff with disabilities experience more UB in the workplace. Yet, these groups are rarely considered in existing interventions to tackle UB. We only identified one published intervention seeking to address racism [82], and none that even mentioned women or minoritised groups. This imbalance reduces equity and fairness and causes members of these groups to feel left behind. For example, the following excerpt from one UK-based study notes: “despite their selflessness and arduous work, Black African nurses face structural and institutionalised discrimination within the NHS. Employers must challenge the dominance and hegemony that exists within the NHS to ensure greater equality of all employees” [139]. Interventions could, and should, be more targeted and designed to specifically reduce UB for these groups.

While equity is essential to the success of interventions, it is also important to include as many people as possible in an intervention and not target one group over another. This is because targeting interventions at specific groups could alienate certain groups or imply they are ‘at fault’. Thus, it can be very difficult to design an intervention that simultaneously addresses the additional burden of UB experienced by minoritised groups and women, while also not singling out or denying opportunities to other staff groups.

CMOC 35: Equity

When UB interventions cater to the specific needs of groups which experience systematic inequalities (C), then they will feel better supported in their workplace (O +), because they feel heard, seen and validated where previously they felt ignored (M)


CMOC 36: Inclusion

If UB interventions seek to include all staff, including minoritized staff and women, and recognises differences in experiences such as higher rates of bullying directed at such groups (C), then inter-professional conflict may be reduced (O +), because staff feel included and their differences acknowledged (M)

Key Dynamic 11. There are trade-offs between fixed interventions and flexibility

Some interventions are inherently flexible and enable use of a repertoire of strategies that may be more effective in different contexts, such as CREW, increasing effectiveness. However, this can affect fidelity. This is because using different components when an intervention is delivered in different contexts makes it difficult to measure which mix of context and component was responsible for intervention success.

CMOC 37. Enhanced flexibility

When implementing an intervention to address UB which draws on flexible implementation (C) this can enhance efficacy of the intervention to reduce UB (O +) because it may enable better adaptability of strategies to specific scenarios (M)


CMOC 38. Reduced fidelity

When implementing an intervention to address UB which draws on flexible implementation (C) this can reduce the ability to identify how to change the intervention to improve future efficacy (O +) because variability in implementation delivery across organisations and contexts can make it difficult to identify which components work (M)

Key Dynamic 12. There are trade-offs between a theory-first and practice-first intervention design

Many interventions are rooted in practice, or rather uncritically replicate existing interventions tried elsewhere. Few interventions were based on academic theory or contemporary behavioural science. A practice-led design may be rapid to design and implement and be more able to fit into existing organisational structures, but risks lacking articulation and understanding of how and why an intervention is supposed to (and did or did not) work. Simultaneously, a theory-led design can also risk being distant from what occurs in practice and being slower to roll out. As the study of such interventions progresses, provision of resources highlighting behavioural techniques for addressing UB for those embedded in practice may help bring these two approaches closer together.

CMOC 39. Theory-led

If an intervention to reduce UB is being implemented while drawing on theories about how UB may arise (C) then an intervention may be slower to roll out (O1-) and more distant from ‘what occurs in practice’ (O2-) because it is facilitating a more robust evaluation process (M) and puts priority on theory over practical considerations (M2)


CMOC 40. Practice-led

If an intervention to reduce UB is implemented rapidly with a practice-first mindset (C) then an understanding of its effectiveness may be compromised (O −) because the evaluation process may not have been adequately considered (M)

Implementation principles to improve how interventions work

We identified fifteen further implementation principles that need to be considered by intervention designers to address the Key Dynamics outlined above. In summary, these principles include (1) ensuring organisational reach, (2) co-creation with staff, (3) assessing organisational landscape before implementation, (4) having dedicated staff to lead work to tackle UB, (5) ensuring skilled facilitation when using training, (6) drawing on multiple simultaneous strategies, (7) maximising visibility across the organisation, (8) intervening early where possible, (9) engaging managers and leaders, (10) ensuring the intervention is perceived as just and not punitive, (11) maximising existing organisational opportunities (e.g. appraisals), (12) managing organisational turnover and change to ensure programme continuity, (13) tackling instigators not victims, (14) incorporating ongoing evaluations and (15) not mixing hierarchies in group sessions. Additional File 5 highlights these principles in full detail, provides a programme theory underlying how these principles work, and maps these to the Key Dynamics. Each principle can help address one or more Dynamics.


Our review set out to investigate how and why interventions to address UB between staff in acute care work, and whom they benefit. We found that overall, interventions to reduce, mitigate and prevent UB are at an early stage of development and evaluation and their ability to impact the prevalence of UB is uncertain. While we identified 42 reports of interventions, most were small in scope, implemented in only one organisation, focused on individual-level contributors to UB, and only delivered to a subset of organisational staff. While UB is associated with reduced patient safety in both simulation and cross-sectional studies [1, 10, 11], no intervention measured changes in patient safety; however, some studies did measure changes in staff wellbeing (e.g. [156, 169]).

Our organisation of strategies according to their level of implementation, mechanism of action and the Key Dynamics, provides guidance on which strategies are appropriate in different circumstances. This is schematically represented in our overall programme theory diagram in Fig. 6. This overall programme theory broadly illustrates “how interventions can work to reduce, mitigate, or prevent UB, why, and under which circumstances”. It is important to note that this schematic only reflects strategies to address UB in acute care identified in this review.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Final overall programme theory diagram

We found that interventions in acute healthcare are preoccupied with individual behaviour, despite most contributors to UB being organisational and systemic [20]. Other reviews of interventions to reduce UB (including outside of healthcare) have highlighted this, noting that “the assumption that workplace mistreatment will be lessened if more people know about it, know how to recognise it and be more assertive in their responses to it (…)is a flawed assumption” [24]. An overly individual focus could lead to interventions being undermined by unaddressed systemic contributors (e.g. frustrating workplace designs, and a lack of job resources). An implication of this that future interventions should move towards addressing these systemic drivers as a priority [8].

Our work supports other authors who identified the risk that certain reporting systems can lead to a “worsening of safety culture by eroding trust and respect among healthcare professionals and teams, which affects both patient safety and individual well-being” [182]. Thus, maintaining a focus on why it is important for UB to be addressed is urgent and essential, to ensure interventions benefit staff and patients and to avoid perceptions of being ‘tick-box exercises’ [160]. This implies that interventions should focus on fostering a culture that supports building psychological safety, relationships between staff, and the ability to openly and freely talk to one another to manage conflicts before they escalate, to increase likelihood of success.

Overall, we found that theoretical bases of interventions and how and why they were intended to work were not well-reported. No included reports presented logic models nor drew on contemporary behavioural science that may lead to, or at the very least, facilitate long-term behaviour change. This finding suggests that authors may not always understand how intervention components will produce the desired effects. This may delay the advancement in rigorous research and understanding of UBs that is achieved by long-term repeated/iterative testing and developing of theories and logics. Other authors reviewing interventions in this area have suggested a lack of grounding in theory may be because “organizations are initiating their own research rather than turning to experts and academics to conduct analyses” [26], as highlighted in Key Dynamic 12. It is possible that provision of further guidance, such as in this review, will help others in practice to feel comfortable drawing on more theory-based interventions. Future reports of interventions should present logic models and make explicit any assumptions regarding how they intend to reduce UB with their chosen intervention design.

Key Dynamic 10 emphasises how existing research has been conducted with little regard to the additional burden of UB that women, staff from minority backgrounds, or with disabilities, experience. Only one intervention sought to address racist UB in acute care [82], and no others addressed this issue. Furthermore, sexual assault and sexism remain prevalent issues in the UK NHS and healthcare systems and societies worldwide, together with other known widespread issues such as racism, and disability and discrimination against LGBTQ + people. For example, over 4000 NHS staff between 2017 and 2022 were accused of rape, sexual assault, harassment, stalking or insults towards other staff or patients and only 576 have faced disciplinary action [183]. Similarly, in Australia, a survey of UB across seven hospitals found that 14.5% of staff had experienced “extreme” UB such as sexual assault, inappropriate touching and physical violence [1]. Intervention architects may assume that addressing UB in general may work to address issues such as misogyny, microaggressions and racism. We also found no mention of co-design of interventions with stakeholders by intervention architects, which may have resulted in interventions not targeting key outcomes relevant to the healthcare workforce. Our findings indicate the experiences of women and minoritised staff are unlikely to be addressed without specific effort. Further interventions must consider and addresses the inequitable impact of UB on female staff and staff from minoritised backgrounds as a core aspect of intervention design.

Recommendations for future research

Interventions in this review had many limitations. Incorporating contemporary behavioural sciences theories which underpin long-term behaviour change into both the design and evaluation of interventions should be a priority. Relevant theories include the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation for changing Behaviour (COM-B) approach [184], implementation science frameworks and theories (e.g. Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) [185, 186], or Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Future studies must fully clarify through logic models how and why intervention components are anticipated to lead to desired outcomes, including how implementation challenges in diverse contexts will be addressed. Future research may need to draw on multiple theories to explain how and why their intervention is intended to drive the desired effects.

Reports of evaluations of interventions should also give greater priority to reporting implementation context and how it could have impacted effectiveness. This will inform a greater understanding of why a particular strategy may work in one context but not another. Interventions must also address actual contributors to UB; however, to do so they need to first understand what they are. Few well-developed tools and instruments exist which determine contributors to UB; rather, the majority simply assess broad prevalence of UB [120]. Tools should be developed that provide greater insight into what is contributing to UB in an organisation and where it is taking place while allowing differing experiences of staff from different backgrounds to be understood. Based on the results of this research, we have developed guidance for addressing UB in healthcare organisations. This guide is available to download at:

Additionally, there is a need for future interventions to incorporate economic evaluations and cost-effectiveness studies to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs of implementation. Lastly, we identified that interventions have been predominantly implemented and evaluated in the USA, Canada and Australia. We suggest there is a need to commission and deliver evaluations of interventions in other countries and health systems suffering from the prevalence of UB, such as the UK.

Strengths and limitations

This research had several strengths. The realist method, informed by the RAMESES standards [31], enabled us to present a coherent synthesis of a complex and disparate landscape of interventions. To achieve this, we included a significant number of reports (n = 148) for a realist review with strong international representation. The review searches are a strength; we drew on a range of published and grey literature reports, and searches were updated until December 2022. The majority of the literature reviewed was published after 2013 (e.g. 27 of 42 intervention studies), significantly advancing previous reviews (e.g. Illing et al. 2013 [22]). This study has also taken a wider view of UB between staff, expanding beyond bullying, which has been a focus of previous work.

The review had limitations. We did not include analysis of interventions to improve civility, but rather only to reduce incivility; therefore, we may have inadvertently excluded interventions capable of addressing UB. Despite seeking and including grey literature, we are also aware that there are unpublished practice-based interventions in use that are not captured by our review methods.


UB is a pervasive issue which negatively impacts patient safety and erodes staff wellbeing. UB is yet to be sufficiently addressed by existing interventions, despite the urgent need to do so. Most intervention studies were conducted in the USA, Australia and Canada. The majority of these do not address systemic contributors to UB and rely on education or training workshops to boost individual knowledge and awareness of UB, improve ability for staff to speak up, or seek to identify problematic individuals. Such approaches may reduce prevalence of UB; however, it is currently unclear whether these interventions positively impact organisational culture, patient safety or staff psychological wellbeing. Interventions that focus on both individual and systemic contributors are required to effectively reduce UB. Issues such as lack of trust in management caused by pervasive, unaddressed UB presents a significant barrier to staff engagement with interventions. Fostering a culture that supports staff on the receiving end of UB to safely speak up can signal that UB is not tolerated. Future interventions would benefit from drawing on modern behavioural and implementation science principles, incorporating economic analyses, focusing on systemic issues that produce UB, and acknowledging and addressing the additional burden of UB experienced by women and minoritised staff.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



British Medical Association


Black, Minority and Ethnic


Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research


Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature


Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configuration


Civility, Respect and Engagement in the Workforce


Health and Care Professions Council


Health Management Information Consortium


Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services


Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and others


Middle Range Theory


National Health Service


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence


Normalisation Process Theory


Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses


International database of prospectively registered systematic reviews


Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards


Randomised controlled trial


Unprofessional behaviour


United Kingdom


United States of America


  1. Westbrook J, Sunderland N, Li L, Koyama A, McMullan R, Urwin R, et al. The prevalence and impact of unprofessional behaviour among hospital workers: a survey in seven Australian hospitals. Med J Aust. 2021;214:31–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Westbrook J, Sunderland N, Atkinson V, Jones C, Braithwaite J. Endemic unprofessional behaviour in health care: the mandate for a change in approach. Med J Aust. 2018;209:380–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Norton P, Costa V, Teixeira J, Azevedo A, Roma-Torres A, Amaro J, et al. Prevalence and determinants of bullying among health care workers in Portugal. Workplace Health Saf. 2017;65:188–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. La Torre G, Firenze A, Colaprico C, Ricci E, Di Gioia LP, Serò D, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of bullying and sexual and racial harassment in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study in Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(11):6938.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Improving Quality in all Sectors. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS FT Phase 1 Review. 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moore A. Watchdog stops monitoring trust over sexual harassment. HSJ. 2022.

  7. Coombes R. This Me Too moment shames the NHS. 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aunger J, Maben J, Abrams R, Wright J, Mannion R, Pearson M, et al. Drivers of unprofessional behaviour between staff in acute care hospitals: A realist review PREPRINT (Version 1). ResearchSquare. 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Maben J, Aunger JA, Abrams R, Pearson M, Wright JM, Westbrook J, et al. Why do acute healthcare staff engage in unprofessional behaviours towards each other and how can these behaviours be reduced? A realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e061771.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Riskin A, Erez A, Foulk TA, Kugelman A, Gover A, Shoris I, et al. The impact of rudeness on medical team performance: A randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:487–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Riskin A, Erez A, Foulk TA, Riskin-Geuz KS, Ziv A, Sela R, et al. Rudeness and medical team performance. Pediatrics. 2017;139(2):e20162305.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cooper WO, Spain DA, Guillamondegui O, Kelz RR, Domenico HJ, Hopkins J, et al. Association of coworker reports about unprofessional behavior by surgeons with surgical complications in their patients. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:828–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kline R, Lewis D. The price of fear: Estimating the financial cost of bullying and harassment to the NHS in England. Public Money Manag. 2019;39:166–74.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bambi S, Guazzini A, de Felippis C, Lucchini A, Rasero L. Preventing workplace incivility, lateral violence and bullying between nurses A narrative literature review. Acta Biomed. 2017;88:39–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Culture Shift. Protecting your people. 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  16. NHS England. NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. 202AD.

  17. Jones CB, Michael Gates RN. The costs and benefits of nurse turnover: A business case for nurse retention. Online J Issues Nursing. 2007;12(3):1–12. Retrieved from

  18. Wilkinson-Brice E, Evans N. NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) 2022 data analysis report for NHS trusts. NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES). 2022.

  19. NHS England. NHS Staff Survey 2022 National results briefing. 2022:1–59.

  20. Keller S, Yule S, Zagarese V, Parker SH. Predictors and triggers of incivility within healthcare teams: A systematic review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2020;10:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tikhonovsky N. Burnt out or something more? Examining the real root cause of NHS workforce challenges. LCP UK. 2023.

  22. Illing J, Carter M, Thompson NJ, Crampton PES, Morrow GM, Howse JH, et al. Evidence synthesis on the occurrence, causes, management of bullying and harassing behaviours to inform decision making in the NHS. Health Soc Care Delivery Res. 2013;44:54–168.

  23. Gillen PA, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG, Begley CM, Luyben AG. Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(1):CD009778. Accessed 12 Oct 2023.

  24. Hodgins M, MacCurtain S, Mannix-McNamara P. Workplace bullying and incivility: A systematic review of interventions. Int J Work Heal Manag. 2014;7:54–72.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wild JRL, Ferguson HJM, McDermott FD, Hornby ST, Gokani VJ. Undermining and bullying in surgical training: A review and recommendations by the Association of Surgeons in Training. Int J Surg. 2015;23:S5-9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Quinlan E, Robertson S, Miller N, Robertson-Boersma D. Interventions to reduce bullying in health care organizations: A scoping review. Heal Serv Manag Res. 2014;27:33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage; 2006. p. 196. 

  28. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Turk A, Wong G, Mahtani KR, Maden M, Hill R, Ranson E, et al. Optimising a person - centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework : a realist review. BMC Med. 2022;20:1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R, Greenhalgh T. Realist Synthesis: RAMESES Training Materials. RAMESES Proj. 2013;2013:55.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Greenhalgh J, Manzano A. Understanding ‘context’ in realist evaluation and synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021;00:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:49

  34. Maben J, Taylor C, Dawson J, Leamy M, McCarthy I, Reynolds E, et al. A realist informed mixed-methods evaluation of Schwartz Center Rounds® in England. Heal Serv Deliv Res. 2018;6:1–260.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dalkin S, Forster N, Hodgson P, Lhussier M, Carr SM. Using computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS; NVivo) to assist in the complex process of realist theory generation, refinement and testing. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021;24:123–34.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pearson M, Chilton R, Wyatt K, Abraham C, Ford T, Woods HB, et al. Implementing health promotion programmes in schools: A realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dada S, Dalkin S, Gilmore B, Hunter R, Mukumbang FC. Applying and reporting relevance, richness and rigour in realist evidence appraisals: Advancing key concepts in realist reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2023;14(3):504–14.

  39. Gilmore B, McAuliffe E, Power J, Vallières F. Data analysis and synthesis within a realist evaluation: toward more transparent methodological approaches. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Heal Serv Res Policy. 2019;24:245–55.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gillespie GL, Grubb PL, Brown K, Boesch MC, Ulrich DL. “Nurses eat their young”: A novel bullying educational program for student nurses. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2017;7:11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. National Guardian’s Office. Speaking up in the NHS in England: A summary of speaking up to Freedom to Speak Up Guardians in NHS trusts and foundation trusts. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Yu F, Raphael D, Mackay L, Smith M, King A. Personal and work-related factors associated with nurse resilience: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;93:129–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cooper K. Ending the silence. BMA. 2018.

  45. Salin D. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Hum Relations. 2003;56:1213–32.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mannion R, Davies H, Powell M, Blenkinsopp J, Millar R, McHale J, et al. Healthcare scandals and the failings of doctors: Do official inquiries hold the profession to account? J Health Organ Manag. 2019;33:221–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. British Medical Association. Bullying and harassment : how to address it and create a supportive and inclusive culture. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Maben J, Adams M, Peccei R, Murrells T, Robert G. “Poppets and parcels”: The links between staff experience of work and acutely ill older peoples’ experience of hospital care. Int J Older People Nurs. 2012;7:83–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. BBC News. NHS Highland pays out millions to bullied staff. 2021:1–6. Available at: Access date 4 Feb 2022.

  50. British Medical Association. Promoting a positive working environment. 2020;2021:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ariza-Montes A, Muniz NM, Montero-Simó MJ, Araque-Padilla RA. Workplace bullying among healthcare workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10:3121–39.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Walton MM. Hierarchies: The Berlin wall of patient safety. Qual Saf Heal Care. 2006;15:229–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cruz D, Rodriguez Y, Mastropaolo C. Perceived microaggressions in health care: A measurement study. PLoS One. 2019;14:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kaiser JA. The relationship between leadership style and nurse-to-nurse incivility: turning the lens inward. J Nurs Manag. 2017;25:110–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Blackstock S, Salami B, Cummings GG. Organisational antecedents, policy and horizontal violence among nurses: An integrative review. J Nurs Manag. 2018;26:972–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Felblinger DM. Bullying, incivility, and disruptive behaviors in the healthcare setting: identification, impact, and intervention. Front Health Serv Manage. 2009;25:13–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. British Medical Association. Workplace bullying and harassment of doctors A review of recent research. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Armstrong N. Management of Nursing Workplace Incivility in the Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review. Work Heal Saf. 2018;66:403–10.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nursing & Midwifery Council. The NMC register. 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  60. General Medical Council. Building a supportive environment: a review to tackle undermining and bullying in medical education and training. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jones A, Kelly D. Deafening silence? Time to reconsider whether organisations are silent or deaf when things go wrong. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:709–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Barzallo Salazar MJ, Minkoff H, Bayya J, Gillett B, Onoriode H, Weedon J, et al. Influence of surgeon behavior on trainee willingness to speak up: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:1001–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Parizad N, Hassankhani H, Rahmani A, Mohammadi E, Lopez V, Cleary M. Nurses’ experiences of unprofessional behaviors in the emergency department: A qualitative study. Nurs Heal Sci. 2018;20:54–9.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mitchell G. Bullying and inadequate leadership found at flagship nursing trust. Nursing Times. 2021:1–6. Available at: Access date 2 Feb 2022.

  65. Benjamin A. Names, hair, identity and micro aggressions. 2021:1–5. Available at: Accessed date 31 Jan 2022.

  66. Pisklakov S, Tilak V, Patel A, Xiong M. Bullying and aggressive behavior among health care providers: literature review. Adv Anthropol. 2013;03:179–82.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kline R. Racism which impacts healthcare staff endangers patient care. Middlesex University London. 2021.

  68. Ross S, Jabbal J, Chauhan K, Maguire D, Randhawa M, Dahir S. Workforce race inequalities and inclusion in NHS providers. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Illing J, Thompson N, Crampton P, Charlotte M, Ms R, Kehoe A, et al. Workplace bullying: measurements and metrics to use in the NHS Final Report for NHS Employers. 2016. p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Rogers-Clark C, Pearce S, Cameron M. Management of disruptive behaviour within nursing work environments: a comprehensive systematic review of the evidence. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7:615–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Churchman JJ, Doherty C. Nurses’ views on challenging doctors’ practice in an acute hospital. Nurs Stand. 2010;24:42–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Manton AP. Bullying: a pebble in the pond. J Emerg Nurs. 2017;43:389–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Griffin M. Teaching cognitive rehearsal as a shield for lateral violence: an intervention for newly licensed nurses. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2004;35:257–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Churruca K, Pavithra A, McMullan R, Urwin R, Tippett S, Cunningham N, et al. Creating a culture of safety and respect through professional accountability: case study of the Ethos program across eight Australian hospitals. Aust Heal Rev. 2022;46:319–24.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Villafranca A, Hamlin C, Enns S, Jacobsohn E. Disruptive behaviour in the perioperative setting: a contemporary review. Can J Anesth. 2017;64:128–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Warrner J, Sommers K, Zappa M, Thornlow DK. Decreasing work place incivility. Nurs Manage. 2016;47:22–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. National Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. Bullying behaviour is unacceptable. It is unprofessional and unneccessary. It affects the wellbeing of individuals and the teams within which they work. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Webb LE, Dmochowski RR, Moore IN, Pichert JW, Catron TF, Troyer M, et al. Using coworker observations to promote accountability for disrespectful and unsafe behaviors by physicians and advanced practice professionals. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42:149–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kline R. A review into culture and bullying at University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust. 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Allen B. Understanding bullying in healthcare organisations. Nursing Standard. 2015;30:259

  81. Bry A, Wigert H. Organizational climate and interpersonal interactions among registered nurses in a neonatal intensive care unit: A qualitative study. J Nurs Manag (John Wiley Sons, Inc). 2022;30:2031–8.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Banerjee D, Nassikas NJ, Singh P, Andrea SB, Zhang AY, Aswad Y, et al. Feasibility of an antiracism curriculum in an academic pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine division. Ats Sch. 2022;3:433–48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Kang J, Jeong YJ. Effects of a smartphone application for cognitive rehearsal intervention on workplace bullying and turnover intention among nurses. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019;25:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Anderson K. Workplace aggression and violence: nurses and midwives say NO. Aust Nurs J. 2011;19:26–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Almost J, Doran DM, Mcgillis Hall L, Spence Laschinger HK. Antecedents and consequences of intra-group conflict among nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18:981–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Stagg SJ, Sheridan DJ, Jones RA, Speroni KG. Workplace bullying: The effectiveness of a workplace program. Aust Nurs midwifery J. 2017;24:34–6.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Hutchinson M, Jackson D, Wilkes L, Vickers MH. A new model of bullying in the nursing workplace organizational characteristics as critical antecedents. Adv Nurs Sci. 2008;31:60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ceravolo DJ, Schwartz DG, Foltz-Ramos KM, Castner J. Strengthening communication to overcome lateral violence. J Nurs Manag. 2012;20:599–606.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. O’Connell KM, Garbark RL, Nader KC. Cognitive rehearsal training to prevent lateral violence in a military medical facility. J Perianesthesia Nurs. 2019;34:645-653.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Rocker CF. Addressing nurse-to-nurse bullying to promote nurse retention. Online J Issues Nurs. 2008;13:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Nikstaitis T, Simko LC. Incivility among intensive care nurses: The effects of an educational intervention. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2014;33:293–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Thorsness R, Sayers B. Systems approach to resolving conduct issues among staff members. AORN J. 1995;61:197–202.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Chipps EM, McRury M. The development of an educational intervention to address workplace bullying: A pilot study. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012;28:94–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Kang J, Kim JI, Yun S. Effects of a cognitive rehearsal program on interpersonal relationships, workplace bullying, symptom experience, and turnover intention among nurses: A randomized controlled trial. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2017;47:689–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kile D, Eaton M, DeValpine M, Gilbert R. The effectiveness of education and cognitive rehearsal in managing nurse-to-nurse incivility: A pilot study. J Nurs Manag. 2019;27:543–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Blakey AG, Anderson L, Smith-Han K, Wilkinson T, Collins E, Berryman E. Time to stop making things worse: An imperative focus for healthcare student bullying research. N Z Med J. 2018;131:81–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hutchinson M, Wilkes L, Jackson D, Vickers MH. Integrating individual, work group and organizational factors: Testing a multidimensional model of bullying in the nursing workplace. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18:173–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Lewis D. Workplace Culture at Southwestern Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Pavithra A, Sunderland N, Callen J, Westbrook J. Unprofessional behaviours experienced by hospital staff: qualitative analysis of narrative comments in a longitudinal survey across seven hospitals in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–5.

  100. O’Keeffe DA, Brennan SR, Doherty EM. Resident training for successful professional interactions. J Surg Educ. 2022;79:107–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Hickson GB, Pichert JW, Webb LE, Gabbe SG. A complementary approach to promoting professionalism: identifying, measuring, and addressing unprofessional behaviors. Acad Med. 2007;82:1040–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Blackstock S, Cummings G, Glanfield F, Yonge O. A review: developing an ecological model approach to co-worker incivility experiences of new graduate nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2021;2022:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Markwell A, Smith S, Michalski M, Conroy S, Bell A. Performance management versus bullying and harassment: An educator perspective. EMA - Emerg Med Australas. 2015;27:468–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. When Bullying Affects Patient Safety. AORN J. 2018;108:78–80.

  105. Hughes A. Being bullied what an insight. British J Perioperative Nursing (United Kingdom). 2003;13(4):166–73.

  106. Lasater K, Mood L, Buchwach D, Dieckmann NF. Reducing incivility in the workplace: Results of a three-part educational intervention. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2015;46:15–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Wilson JL. An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: a review of the literature. Br J Nurs. 2016;25:303–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Stevens S. Nursing workforce retention: Challenging a bullying culture. Health Aff. 2002;21:189–93.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Babla K, Lau S, Akindolie O, Radia T, Modi N, Kingdon C, et al. Racial microaggressions within respiratory and critical care medicine. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:e27–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Carter M, Thompson N, Crampton P, Morrow G, Burford B, Gray C, Illing J. Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: a questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting. BMJ open. 2013;3(6):e002628.

  111. Griffith M, Clery MJ, Humbert B, Joyce JM, Perry M, Hemphill RR, et al. Exploring action items to address resident mistreatment through an educational workshop. West J Emerg Med. 2019;21:42–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Tran V. Dealing with bullying and harassment: A practical guide for Australasian emergency medicine trainees. EMA - Emerg Med Australas. 2015;27:473–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Weaver KB. The effects of horizontal violence and bullying on new nurse retention. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2013;29:138–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Credland NJ, Whitfield C. Incidence and impact of incivility in paramedicine: A qualitative study. Emerg Med J. 2022;39:52–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Alspach G. Critical care nurses as coworkers: are our interactions nice or nasty? Crit Care Nurse. 2007;27:10–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Parker KM, Harrington A, Smith CM, Sellers KF, Millenbach L. Creating a nurse-led culture to minimize horizontal violence in the acute care setting: a multi-interventional approach. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2016;32:56–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Bamberger E, Bamberger P. Unacceptable behaviours between healthcare workers: just the tip of the patient safety iceberg. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:638–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Sheehan M, McCabe TJ, Garavan TN. Workplace bullying and employee outcomes: a moderated mediated model. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2020;31:1379–416.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Royal College of Nursing. Bullying and harassment: good practice guidance for preventing and addressing bullying and harassment in health and social care organisations. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Osatuke K, Moore SC, Ward C, Dyrenforth SR, Belton L. Civility, Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW). J Appl Behav Sci. 2009;45:384–410.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Babenko-Mould Y, Laschinger HKS. Effects of incivility in clinical practice settings on nursing student burnout. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2014;11:145–54.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Dixon-Woods M, Campbell A, Martin G, Willars J, Tarrant C, Aveling EL, et al. Improving employee voice about transgressive or disruptive behavior: a case study. Acad Med. 2019;94:579–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Johnson SL, Haerling KA, Yuwen W, Huynh V, Le C. Incivility and clinical performance, teamwork, and emotions: a randomized controlled trial. J Nurs Care Qual. 2020;35:70–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Taylor RA, Taylor SS. Reframing and addressing horizontal violence as a workplace quality improvement concern. Nurs Forum. 2018;53:459–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Barrett A, Piatek C, Korber S, Padula C. Lessons learned from a lateral violence and team-building intervention. Nurs Adm Q. 2009;33:342–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Westbrook JI, Urwin R, McMullan R, Badgery-Parker T, Pavithra A, Churruca K, et al. Changes in the prevalence of unprofessional behaviours by co-workers following a 2 professional accountability culture change program across five Australian hospitals. 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Armstrong NE. A quality improvement project measuring the effect of an evidence-based civility training program on nursing workplace incivility in a rural hospital using quantitative methods. Online J Rural Nurs Heal Care. 2017;17:100–37.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Stone L, Phillips C, Douglas KA. Sexual assault and harassment of doctors, by doctors: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2019;53:833–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Jenkins S, Woith W, Kerber C, Stenger D. Why can’t we all just get along? A civility journal club intervention. Nurse Educ. 2011;36:140–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. Creating supportive environments: Tackling behaviours that undermine a culture of safety. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; 2016. Available at: Access date of 28 Jan 2022.

  131. NHS Employers. Tackling bullying in ambulance trusts: a guide for action. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Laschinger HKS, Leiter MP, Day A, Gilin-Oore D, MacKinnon SP. Building empowering work environments that foster civility and organizational trust: Testing an intervention. Nurs Res. 2012;61:316–25.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Royal College of Surgeons of England. Managing Disruptive behaviours in surgery: a guide to good practice. 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Colangelo A. St Vincent’s reviews anti-bullying program amid staff backlash. The Age. 2019:1–3. Available at: Access date 4 Feb. 2022.

  135. Rutherford DE, Gillespie GL, Smith CR. Interventions against bullying of prelicensure students and nursing professionals: An integrative review. Nurs Forum. 2019;54:84–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Owens J, Singh G, Cribb A. Austerity and professionalism: being a good healthcare professional in bad conditions. Heal Care Anal. 2019;27:157–70.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Embree JL, Bruner DA, White A. Raising the level of awareness of nurse-to-nurse lateral violence in a critical access hospital. Nurs Res Pract. 2013;2013:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Zhang X, Xiong L. Impact of nurse horizontal violence and coping strategies: a review. Yangtze Med. 2019;03:289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Tuffour I. It is like ‘judging a book by its cover’: An exploration of the lived experiences of Black African mental health nurses in England. Nursing Inquiry. 2022;29(1):e12436.

  140. Efe SY, Ayaz S. Mobbing against nurses in the workplace in Turkey. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57:328–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Stagg SJ, Sheridan D, Jones RA, Speroni KG. Evaluation of a workplace bullying cognitive rehearsal program in a hospital setting. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2011;42:395–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Işık I, Gümüşkaya O, Şen S, Arslan ÖH. The elephant in the room: nurses’ views of communication failure and recommendations for improvement in perioperative care. AORN J. 2020;111:e1-15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Clark CM, Ahten SM, Macy R. Using problem-based learning scenarios to prepare nursing students to address incivility. Clin Simul Nurs. 2013;9:e75-83.

    Google Scholar 

  144. AsiKarakaş S, Okanli AE. The effect of assertiveness training on the mobbing that nurses experience. Work Heal Saf. 2015;63:446–51.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Miller DT, Chen EH. Helping the learner to deal with microaggressions in the workplace: Individual, programmatic, and institutional-level responses. AEM Educ Train. 2021;5:S140–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Tame S. The relationship between continuing professional education and horizontal violence in perioperative practice. J Perioper Pract. 2012;22:220–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Chadwick S, Travaglia J. Workplace bullying in the Australian health context: a systematic review. J Heal Organ Manag. 2017;31:286–301.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Hemmings N, Buckingham H, Oung C, Palmer W. Attracting, supporting and retaining a diverse NHS workforce. 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Adams L, Bryan V. Workplace harassment: The leadership factor. Healthc Manag Forum. 2021;34:81–6.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Sillero Sillero A, Buil N. Enhancing interprofessional collaboration in perioperative setting from the qualitative perspectives of physicians and nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(20):10775.

  151. Beale D, Leather P. Working with care – improving working relationships in health and social care : self-assessment tools for health. Royal College of Nursing - RCN; 2005. Available at: Access date of 27 Apr. 2022.

  152. Phillips JM, Stalter AM, Winegardner S, Wiggs C, Jauch A. Systems thinking and incivility in nursing practice: An integrative review. Nurs Forum. 2018;53:286–98.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Naylor MJ, Boyes C, Killingback C. “You’ve broken the patient”: Physiotherapists’ lived experience of incivility within the healthcare team - An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Physiotherapy. 2022;117:89–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Kousha S, Shahrami A, Forouzanfar MM, Sanaie N, Atashzadeh-Shoorideh F, Skerrett V. Effectiveness of educational intervention and cognitive rehearsal on perceived incivility among emergency nurses: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Nurs. 2022;21:153.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Lovejoy-Bluem A. Incivility and/or Human Kind(ness) in the NICU. Acad Neonatal Nurs. 2016;35:173–4.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Nicotera AM, Mahon MM, Wright KB. Communication that builds teams: Assessing a nursing conflict intervention. Nurs Adm Q. 2014;38:248–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Venkatesh B, Corke C, Raper R, Pinder M, Stephens D, Joynt G, et al. Findings of the bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment survey: Response of the college of intensive care medicine. Crit Care Resusc. 2016;18:228–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Shuttleworth A. Can Arrowe Park show other trusts how to beat the bullies? Nurs Times. 2018;114:12.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Solheim J. Caring for Each Other While We Care for Others. J Emerg Nurs. 2018;44:319–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. McKenzie LN, Shaw L, Jordan JE, Alexander M, O’Brien M, Singer SJ, et al. Factors influencing the implementation of a hospitalwide intervention to promote professionalism and build a safety culture: a qualitative study. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45:694–705.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Hawkins N, Jeong S, Smith T. New graduate registered nurses’ exposure to negative workplace behaviour in the acute care setting: An integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;93:41–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Hawkins N, Jeong SYS, Smith T, Sim J. Creating respectful workplaces for nurses in regional acute care settings: A quasi-experimental design. Nurs Open. 2022;2022:78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Hawkins N, Jeong SYS, Smith T, Sim J. A conflicted tribe under pressure: A qualitative study of negative workplace behaviour in nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2022;17:17.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Dimarino TJ. Eliminating Lateral Violence in the Ambulatory Setting: One Center’s Strategies. AORN J. 2011;93:583–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Speck RM, Foster JJ, Mulhern VA, Burke SV, Sullivan PG, Fleisher LA. Development of a professionalism committee approach to address unprofessional medical staff behavior at an academic medical center. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014;40:161–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Purpora C, Blegen MA. Horizontal Violence and the Quality and Safety of Patient Care: A Conceptual Model. Nurs Res Pract. 2012;2012(2012):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Al-Rais A. Why we should avoid handover hostility. BMJ. 2017;356:j1272.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Mello MM, Jagsi R. Standing up against gender bias and harassment — a matter of professional ethics. N Engl J Med. 2020;6:510–2.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Leiter MP, Laschinger HKS, Day A, Oore DG. The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96:1258–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Johnson MJ, May CRPromoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008592.

  171. Gamble Blakey A, Smith-Han K, Anderson L, Collins E, Berryman E, Wilkinson TJ. Interventions addressing student bullying in the clinical workplace: A narrative review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Demarco RF, Roberts SJ, Chandler GE. The use of a writing group to enhance voice and connection among staff nurses. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2005;21:85–90.

  173. Longo J, Hain D. Bullying: a hidden threat to patient safety. Nephrol Nurs J. 2014;41:193–9; quiz 200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Dahlby MA, Herrick LM. Evaluating an educational intervention on lateral violence. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2014;45:344–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Edwards SL, O’Connell CF. Exploring bullying: Implications for nurse educators. Nurse Educ Pract. 2007;7:26–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Al-Ghabeesh SH, Qattom H. Workplace bullying and its preventive measures and productivity among emergency department nurses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:44.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Saxton R. Communication skills training to address disruptive physician behavior. AORN J. 2012;95:602–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Baldwin CA, Hanrahan K, Edmonds SW, Krumm AM, Sy A, Jones A, et al. Implementation of Peer Messengers to Deliver Feedback: An Observational Study to Promote Professionalism in Nursing. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2022;000 i:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Michie S, Wood CE, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis JJ, Hardeman W. Behaviour change techniques: The development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative da. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19:1–187.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Jones A, Maben J, Adams M, Mannion R, Banks C, Blake J, et al. Implementation of “Freedom to Speak Up Guardians” in NHS acute and mental health trusts in England: the FTSUG mixed-methods study. Heal Soc Care Deliv Res. 2022;10:1–124.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Spence Laschinger HK, Wong CA, Grau AL. The influence of authentic leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49:1266–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Myers JS, Shapiro J, Rosen IM. Gotcha! Using patient safety event reports to report people rather than problems. J Grad Med Educ. 2020;12:525–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Torjesen I, Waters A. Medical colleges and unions call for inquiry over “shocking” levels of sexual assault in the NHS. BMJ. 2023;381:p1105.

  184. Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci. 2015;11:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Harvey SB, Laird B, Henderson M, Hotopf M. The mental health of health care professionals: a review for the department of health. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to sincerely thank all those who supported this study. Specifically, we would like to thank members of our stakeholder and advisory groups, who so generously gave their time and expertise, despite the sometimes difficult subject matter. We would also like to thank Elizabeth Campbell for her administrative support throughout the project.


This project was supported by the NIHR HS&DR programme with grant number 131606. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



JM, RA, JIW, JMW, RM, AJ and MP developed the initial ideas and secured funding for this project. JAA, JMW and RA contributed to the searching and screening of reports. JAA performed data extraction while JAA, JM and RA led the realist analysis process with input and feedback from the other co-authors. JA and JM led the drafting of this manuscript with editing by all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ Twitter handles

@NursingPolicy (Jill Maben); @J_Aunger (Justin Aunger)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Avery Aunger.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Initial theories regarding strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviour.

Additional file 2.

Search syntax and process.

Additional file 3.

Table of intervention characteristics.

Additional file 4.

Use of strategies in different intervention types.

Additional file 5.

Implementation principles.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maben, J., Aunger, J.A., Abrams, R. et al. Interventions to address unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute care: what works for whom and why? A realist review. BMC Med 21, 403 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: