Why don’t hospital healthcare professionals use the support program?

A program that exists only on paper

A hospital may have a support program that remains out of reach for someone who has just finished a night shift after a difficult incident. Check whether staff can find the number without access to the hospital network or having to ask a manager. Posting a link on the intranet does not answer that question. A review of 99 studies found that the support staff receive after incidents does not always match what they need. It does not show that any single way of making a program available will solve the problem: only 11 studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions, findings for peer-support programs were mixed, and there were few controlled comparisons or randomized studies. Hospitals should therefore distinguish between having support on paper and being able to use it when it is needed.

Concerns about confidentiality

Even easy-to-find contact details are not enough if staff do not know who will learn about their conversation. Rather than simply calling the service “confidential,” the hospital should explain who can access information, what is shared with the employer, how long data is kept, and what exceptions to confidentiality apply. It should also check that the route to support does not automatically go through someone who assesses the healthcare professional’s work. This matters particularly after an incident that may also be subject to a formal investigation. Staff should be able to distinguish a conversation intended to help them from participation in that investigation. Without that separation, a promise of support may not inspire trust, even if the program itself is running.

Shame and anticipated consequences

Healthcare professionals may be held back not only by uncertainty about confidentiality but also by shame and anticipated career consequences. They may worry that asking for help will affect their schedule or how the team sees them. Few requests for support therefore do not show that staff have no need for it. A better approach is to ask anonymously what specifically discourages contact, without requiring anyone to describe private difficulties. When speaking with the team, present support as an available option, not a sign of weakness or a mandatory step after an incident. Such questions can reveal barriers related to reputation and work arrangements, but they are not a way to diagnose employees’ mental health. The answers should prompt a review of the program’s rules, not judgments about people who do not use it.

Support that does not fit the need

After an incident, one person may want to talk, another may want information about what happens next, and a third may primarily need practical help at work. A research review describes varied staff needs concerning the timing, format, and provider of support. Staff should therefore have a choice, rather than being offered the same contact immediately after every incident. Help should also remain available later, when a need to talk may only then emerge. Options could include telephone, in-person, or asynchronous contact, but only if those options are genuinely available, including outside regular hours. A review of 12 programs described in 16 studies identified implementation barriers and only preliminary evidence of benefits. A claim that support is available is no substitute for checking whether staff can actually reach it.

A manager as a guide, not a gatekeeper

A manager can help staff reach support but should not decide whether someone’s difficulty warrants a conversation. Their role is to point out the available channels and, when needed, help arrange cover at work. They do not need to know what the employee discusses with the person providing support. After a difficult incident, a manager can privately remind someone about the program and give them room to decide, without pressuring them to use it. Performance assessment should also be clearly separated from the decision to seek support. If an employee must first convince their manager that they have a good enough reason to get in touch, the manager becomes a gatekeeper. Staff should receive information about help without having to meet that condition.

What to measure instead of clicks

Visits to the program’s webpage show interest in the information, but not whether a healthcare professional received help. Hospitals can anonymously check how many staff know how to make contact on a night shift, how long it takes from a request to a conversation, and which shifts leave support unreachable. It is also worth asking why people stopped trying to make contact and how they rate the confidentiality and usefulness of the support they received. These data can help identify barriers to access, but they do not replace an assessment of staff mental health. A review of programs points to limitations in the evidence for their effectiveness, so an efficient contact channel should not be equated with a proven benefit for every employee. Measurement should capture both whether help can be reached and what the experience is like for someone who tries to use it.

Making changes in response to feedback

Feedback matters when it leads to a visible change. If staff report an outdated number, a long wait, or a conflict between a support provider’s role and their role in assessing performance, the hospital should address that specific obstacle. If staff express doubts about confidentiality, it is worth tracing how information is shared and who can access it, then explaining to the team what has changed. Announcing a fix during administrative office hours is not enough: contact should be tested again on the least-staffed shifts. That way, feedback becomes an attempt to improve access to the program rather than ending with a survey. The next check should follow an employee’s path to help, not just confirm that a new message has appeared on the intranet.

Few requests for help through a hospital support program do not mean healthcare professionals have no need for it. Check whether they can find the contact details on a night shift, trust the confidentiality rules, and choose how to receive support.

Empatyzer in conversations about staff support

A manager notices that the hospital support program is rarely used on night shifts but does not assume staff have no need for it. They can ask Em to help prepare a team conversation about when support is available, how to make contact, and whether staff trust it. In group mode, Em can help frame questions about practical barriers without expecting employees to disclose private problems. Before the conversation, the manager can look at the “About Me” view to separate their own assumptions about helpful support from the team’s possible needs. Em can then help them write a clear message about the available routes and forms of contact, making clear that the manager points out options rather than judging whether a request is justified. Micro-lessons can offer reminders to suggest support discreetly and respect the employee’s decision. These steps help prepare communication; they do not replace checking whether the program is genuinely accessible or having the hospital explain its confidentiality rules.