Perceptions of psychological safety in high-containment laboratories: mixed method survey of community members and industry experts

Abstract

Background

In high-reliability organizations (HROs), where safety is paramount, psychological safety is crucial for maintaining operational integrity and mitigating potential risks. The interdependence between HROs and surrounding communities necessitates examining the perceptions of conditions for safe and transparent operation from both community residents and subject matter experts (SMEs). This study aims to understand community residents’ perceptions of psychological safety in the operation of a high-containment laboratory (HCL), how incident reporting reflects the psychological safety of a facility, and the alignment in community residents and SMEs’ assessments of psychological safety in these laboratories.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from community residents and high-containment laboratory SMEs. Community residents evaluated the potential impact of inadequate psychological safety on safe operations in high-containment laboratories and two incident reporting formats for their association with psychological safety. Both community residents and SMEs provided open-ended responses regarding the role of psychological safety in a high-containment laboratory.

Results

Community members emphasized that psychological safety plays a key role for safe and reliable operations within high-containment laboratories, and solution-oriented incident reports that focus on corrective actions appeared to indicate higher levels of psychological safety than problem-oriented reports focused on identifying the root cause of the incident. Thematic analysis showed overlap in key themes from community residents and SMEs, suggesting that psychological safety is important for safe operations, safety culture, and communication. Uniquely, SMEs offered more detailed insights into risk management, preparedness, and the impact on community and reputation.

Conclusions

Findings underscore the importance of psychological safety in promoting safety culture and effective communication within HROs, which is recognized by the surrounding community of residents. Transparent reporting with a focus on corrective action may be perceived as more indicative of psychological safety than reports centered on root cause analysis. Lastly, there is a shared understanding of the importance of psychological safety between community residents and SMEs, with SMEs providing a more nuanced perspective on improving psychological safety in HROs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-025-02763-4.

Background

High-reliability organizations (HROs) are defined as organizations that operate in high-risk environments with low accident rates [1–2]. HROs operate under practices designed to prevent critical errors in high-risk environments. In these organizations, safety is paramount as critical incidents or failures can result in significant consequences, including severe occupational and environmental health impacts [3–4]. One example of an HRO is a high-containment laboratory, which is a lab designed specifically for the safe handling of hazardous agents. Notably, in high-containment laboratories, stringent safety protocols are imperative due to the potentially catastrophic consequences of safety lapses [5]. For example, an economic analysis of a food-and-mouth (FMD) outbreak, even with emergency protocols, estimates economic loss of $56 billion and even significant job losses [6]. Beyond endangering the health and safety of lab personnel, such lapses also pose significant risks to the surrounding community [7–8]. In this context, psychological safety is a critical factor for maintaining operational integrity and mitigating potential risks, especially where safety is a critical function [9–10]. Previous meta-analyses established significant links between psychological safety and key workplace factors, such as task performance, work engagement, and information/knowledge sharing [11]. Rooted in organizational and social psychology theories, psychological safety refers to the perception of an environment where individuals feel safe to express concerns, voice opinions, and take interpersonal risks without fear of reprisal or negative consequences [12, 13, 14]. In other words, psychological safety is the sense of well-being and confidence that individuals experience in an environment where they can share their opinions, ideas, and questions without fear of negative consequence. This concept gained prominence through research conducted by Amy Edmondson, whose studies explored its effects on team performance and organizational learning [15–16].

Within high-containment laboratories, where personnel handle hazardous pathogens and adhere to complex protocols, the presence of psychological safety is paramount [1, 12, 17–18]. Workers must feel comfortable acknowledging errors, reporting incidents, and collaborating effectively to address safety concerns. Without psychological safety, there is a heightened risk of underreporting incidents, reluctance to disclose errors, and a breakdown in communication—all of which can compromise safety protocols and increase the likelihood of accidents [19–20]. For example, envision a scenario where a laboratory technician identifies a potential safety hazard but hesitates to report it due to concerns about negative repercussions from management. Without a culture of psychological safety, this technician may opt to remain silent, allowing the hazard to persist and potentially lead to a safety incident. Conversely, in an environment where psychological safety is fostered, the technician would feel empowered to voice concerns, enabling timely intervention and hazard mitigation.

Theoretical underpinning

The synthesis of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [21] and Social Exchange Theory (SET) [22] offers a comprehensive framework for fostering psychological safety within high-containment laboratories, crucial for promoting trust, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among personnel. According to TPB, individual behavior within such environments is influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Positive attitudes toward safety practices, coupled with a supportive organizational culture, are pivotal in cultivating psychological safety among lab personnel. Subjective norms, reflecting the perceived social pressure from peers and supervisors, shape employees’ safety-related behaviors, emphasizing the importance of establishing norms that prioritize safety and encourage open communication. Perceived behavioral control, shaped by access to resources including supervision and training, directly impacts employees’ sense of agency and control over their work environment, contributing significantly to psychological safety.

Complementing TPB, SET underscores the importance of trust, collaboration, and knowledge sharing in fostering psychological safety within high-containment laboratories. Trust, as a cornerstone of social exchange, is cultivated through transparent communication, supportive leadership, and shared values, enabling employees to feel secure in expressing concerns and ideas [23]. Collaboration emerges as a natural outcome of trust, as individuals engage in cooperative behaviors when they perceive mutual benefit. Encouraging collaboration among laboratory personnel fosters a culture of reciprocity and mutual support, further enhancing psychological safety. Additionally, knowledge sharing, driven by the principles of social exchange, promotes organizational resilience by facilitating the dissemination of best practices and innovative solutions to safety challenges. This collective intelligence empowers the organization to adapt and respond effectively to safety threats, ultimately bolstering its resilience and safety response capabilities. By integrating TPB and SET principles, high-containment laboratories can establish a robust framework for fostering psychological safety, underpinning a culture of trust, collaboration, and knowledge sharing essential for organizational resilience and safety excellence.

According to the organizational learning theory [24], psychological safety can advance the process of workplace safety management by efficiently identifying related problems and encouraging team-based learning that help members obtain knowledge, skills, and abilities to solve the identified problems [25]. These theories underscore psychological safety’s pivotal role in promoting safety, communication, and organizational learning within high-risk environments like high-containment laboratories. By cultivating an environment where individuals feel psychologically safe to voice concerns and contribute to safety improvement efforts, organizations can enhance their ability to operate safely. This helps mitigate the potential risks associated with handling hazardous materials and pathogens, thereby protecting human and animal health, and the surrounding environment.

Diverse voices, unified safety standards

Examining the perceptions of both community residents [7, 26] and subject matter experts (SMEs) [27–28] regarding psychological safety within high-containment laboratories is paramount from a community psychology perspective due to the inherent interdependence between these facilities and the communities in which they operate. Transparency is a fundamental principle in fostering trust and collaboration between high-containment laboratories and their surrounding communities [7, 26]. Community members’ perceptions of psychological safety not only reflect their sense of trust in the safety measures employed by these facilities but also influence their level of engagement and cooperation [29]. Involving these residents in the assessment of psychological safety ensures that their voices are heard, and their concerns are addressed, promoting a sense of ownership and accountability for safety outcomes [30]. Additionally, by incorporating community perspectives, high-containment laboratories can better align their safety protocols with community values and priorities, enhancing overall community resilience and well-being.

Furthermore, the safe operation of high-containment laboratories has significant public and animal health implications that extend beyond the laboratory walls. Community psychology emphasizes the importance of understanding the broader social, economic, and environmental factors that shape health outcomes within communities [29, 30, 31]. In the context of high-containment laboratories, maintaining psychological safety is critical for the safety of laboratory personnel and for preventing potential public and animal health crises. Community members’ perceptions of psychological safety can provide valuable insights into how safety lapses within these facilities may impact public health outcomes, such as the spread of infectious diseases or environmental contamination. By engaging with community residents, high-containment laboratories can enhance their responsiveness to community needs and concerns, strengthening the overall public and animal health infrastructure and promoting collaboration between stakeholders.

Involving SMEs in the assessment of psychological safety within high-containment laboratories is equally crucial. SMEs bring a wealth of technical knowledge and practical experience that can identify potential risks and effective mitigation strategies that may not be apparent to community residents. Their insights can enhance the development and implementation of robust safety protocols, including risk assessments [32–33], ensuring that these facilities not only comply with regulatory standards but also exceed them. By integrating the expertise of SMEs with the perspectives of community residents, high-containment laboratories can foster a more comprehensive approach to safety that addresses both technical and community-based concerns, ultimately contributing to greater trust, transparency, and collaboration. Therefore, examining the perceptions of both community residents and SMEs regarding psychological safety within high-containment laboratories is essential for promoting transparency, trust, and collaboration between these facilities and their surrounding communities. By incorporating community perspectives, high-containment laboratories can enhance their safety protocols, aligning them with community values and priorities to better protect public health and ensure the safe operation of these facilities.

Methods

Study aims

The current study aims to address three primary questions to enhance our understanding of the role of psychological safety in high-containment laboratory safety:

RQ1. Do community members perceive psychological safety as essential for the safe operation of high-containment laboratories?

Understanding the perceptions of community members, who may be directly impacted by safety incidents originating from high containment laboratories, is crucial. Their perspectives can shed light on the broader societal implications of psychological safety within these environments and inform community engagement strategies aimed at promoting safety and transparency, which may help to increase community trust in the facility.

RQ2. Which incident reporting approach better reflects psychological safety: solution-oriented approach focusing on corrective actions or problem-oriented approach focusing on risk and root cause identification?

Incident reporting serves as a critical communication tool for informing community members about biotechnical hazards and risks within high-containment laboratories [34]. Different incident reporting methodologies may prioritize different aspects of safety culture, which can, in turn, influence perceptions of psychological safety. By comparing approaches focused on corrective actions versus those emphasizing risk and root cause identification, this study seeks to elucidate how these methodologies align with the promotion of psychological safety within high-containment laboratories contexts.

RQ3. Is there a discrepancy in the assessment of psychological safety between community members and SMEs in high-containment laboratories?

Examining potential discrepancies in the assessment of psychological safety between community members and SMEs provides insights into the alignment of perceptions and priorities regarding safety. Identifying any disparities can inform targeted interventions aimed at bridging gaps in understanding and fostering a shared commitment to promoting psychological safety and enhancing safety within high-containment laboratories.

This study addresses a significant gap in the literature by investigating the role of psychological safety in high-containment laboratories safety from multiple perspectives, including those of community members and industry experts. The findings have the potential to inform policies, procedures, and training initiatives aimed at cultivating a culture of safety and resilience within high-risk environments.

Participants

The study engaged two distinct groups: residents of a community adjacent to a high-containment laboratory (n = 147) and SMEs currently working in high-containment laboratories (n = 20). In justification of the sample size of high-containment laboratory SMEs, for thematic analysis previous research has suggested 12 interviews adequately achieve data saturation [35]. Community residents were recruited from a midwestern public university located directly next to a high-containment laboratory facility. Their average age was 19.51 (SD = 2.30) and the majority were female (62.6%). The average familiarity with high-containment laboratories was low (M = 1.30 out of 5, SD = 0.67) and they had modest familiarity with the concept of psychological safety (M = 2.13 out of 5, SD = 0.87). SMEs were recruited from two different high-containment laboratories, with sixteen SMEs from one high-containment laboratory and four from the other. Specific demographic information was only collected from the four SMEs at one facility, while demographic data from the sixteen SMEs was not collected to maintain confidentiality in reporting qualitative results to upper management. The average tenure in the facility for these SMEs was 2.73 years (SD = 1.49). They ranged from technical support staff to senior scientist level and represented various facility units. The four SMEs (50% male, 50% female) had an average age of 44.75 years (SD = 25.94). Their education levels ranged from some college to Doctorate or professional degree, and they were all familiar with both high-containment laboratories (M = 3.75, SD = 1.5) and psychological safety (M = 3.75, SD = 1.5).

Procedures

A mixed methods approach was adopted to gain a richer understanding of community members and SMEs’ perceptions of psychological safety in a high-containment laboratory. Questionnaires and qualitative interview questions varied between community members and SMEs since workers in high-containment laboratories receive extensive training on safety protocols and psychological safety. To ensure consistent understanding of psychological safety, both community members and SMEs were provided with an operational definition of psychological safety. Community members were also provided with an example of high-containment laboratories to inform their answers, in case they were unfamiliar with them.

Community residents evaluated the potential impact of inadequate psychological safety on safe operations in high-containment laboratories and two incident reporting formats for their association with psychological safety. The examples of incident reporting were obtained from the potential exposure incident quarterly reports (https://www.bu.edu/neidl/safety-security/neidl-quarterly-incident-reports/) by the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories at Boston University. See Supplementary Materials for survey materials and survey items. A paired t-test was conducted to compare within-subject ratings of incident reports.

Finally, both groups of participants, community residents and SMEs, were asked to provide open-ended responses to the question “Do you think a high-containment laboratory with low psychological safety can operate safely? Why?” Community residents were asked via an online survey, and SMEs were asked via an in-person interview. SME responses were transcribed, and all the qualitative responses were analyzed via semantic analysis to identify common keywords, phrases, and their relationships regarding psychological safety in participant responses. Key themes were derived from them using the thematic analysis framework.

Individual differences (i.e., age, gender, education, HCL familiarity, and psychological safety familiarity) were assessed as control variables. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis (i.e., psychological safety implication = Age + Gender + Education + HCL familiarity + Psychological safety familiarity) were examined to ensure that psychological safety implication perceptions do not systematically differ across demographic factors and individual differences. Regression results indicate that psychological safety implications do not systematically vary based on demographic factors and individual differences. Table 1 provides a detailed overview of this regression analysis, highlighting lack of significant effects, demonstrating robust psychological safety implications.

Table 1.

Regression results of psychological safety implications across individual differences

	Estimate	SE	t	p
(Intercept)	1.29	0.75	1.72	0.09
Age	0.03	0.04	0.75	0.45
Female (vs. Male)	− 0.18	0.17	-1.02	0.31
Education	0.01	0.17	0.04	0.97
HCL familiarity	0.09	0.12	0.69	0.49
PS familiarity	− 0.05	0.09	− 0.49	0.63

Note. HCL = High-containment laboratory; PS = Psychological safety; SE = Standard error

Thematic analysis

Initially, the semantic analysis conducted using Python with the Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK) [36–37] library followed a systematic approach outlined in several key steps. First, text preprocessing was performed to prepare the data for analysis. This involved gathering relevant text data, such as interview transcripts or survey responses, and then cleaning the text by removing irrelevant information such as headers, footers, and punctuation. The text was then tokenized to break it down into individual words or meaningful units, followed by the removal of stopwords—common words that do not carry much meaning on their own (e.g., “the”, “and”, “so”. The next step in the process was Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD), which is essential for accurately understanding words with multiple meanings (polysemy). To analyze the semantic context of the text and identify the most likely meaning of ambiguous words based on context, we used techniques such as NLTK’s WordNet and SpaCy [38]. NLTK’s WordNet is a comprehensive English lexical database and SpaCy is a natural language processing library that includes features for tokenizing words (i.e., splitting sentences into individual words), understanding grammatic structures, and analyzing relationships between words in a sentence. Following WSD, the analysis focused on identifying themes within the text. Named Entity Recognition (NER) tools provided by NLTK [39] were utilized to identify key entities such as high-containment laboratories or researchers, aiding in pinpointing relevant actors and locations. OpenAI’s ChatGPT 3.5 [40] was leveraged to enhance the interpretation and develop custom algorithms to identify recurring themes based on keywords or phrases related to “psychological safety”, “operational safety”, “communication”, etc. The accuracy of the identified themes was reviewed through an iterative process, with adjustments made based on initial findings to refine steps like WSD or theme identification algorithms for improved accuracy. Overall, this systematic approach allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the text data, providing valuable insights into the topics under investigation.

In justifying the sample size, the analysis utilized a thematic framework to identify key themes and patterns indicative of data saturation. The consistency across responses in emphasizing the critical role of psychological safety in a high-containment laboratory operation was notable. Participants recurrently emphasized themes such as communication, trust, and mistake reporting, indicating a shared understanding. Despite diverse perspectives, underlying themes remained consistent, reinforcing the significance of psychological safety. Moreover, the depth of insights provided by participants, coupled with the absence of novel insights after analyzing numerous responses, further affirmed data saturation. This comprehensive analysis suggests the sample size was adequate in capturing the breadth and depth of participant perspectives on psychological safety in the context of high-containment laboratories.

Results

To address our first research question, we asked community members “Do you think a [high-containment laboratory] with low psychological safety can operate safely?” Participants responded on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely likely), as well as provided an open-ended response explaining their answer. The results showed that community members believed it is unlikely that such a high-containment laboratory can operate safely (M = 1.67 out of 5, SD = 0.60), emphasizing the critical role of psychological safety in high-containment laboratory safety. There were no significant differences across demographic groups regarding perceptions of the likelihood of safe and reliable operation in high-containment laboratories when psychological safety is poor (F(6, 121) = 1.638, p = 0.14). Regardless of variations in age, sex, education level, familiarity with the high-containment laboratory environment, or understanding of psychological safety, community members consistently recognized the strong link between poor psychological safety and unsafe operations, highlighting that perceived negative safety outcomes transcend demographic differences.

To address our second research question, we conducted a paired t-test to compare within-subject ratings of incident reports. In the context of a high-containment laboratory, solution-oriented incident reporting focused on corrective actions appeared to indicate higher levels of psychological safety (M = 3.34, SD = 1.18) compared to problem-oriented incident reporting centered on risk and root cause identification (M = 3.09, SD = 1.09; t[128] = 2.27, p = 0.03), with a mean difference of 0.25 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.03–0.46 (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Community evaluation of incident reporting format’s association with psychological safety

To address our third research question, we compared the textual responses between community members and SMEs. Results from the sematic analyses identified the following key themes from the community residents and high-containment laboratories SMEs (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary of key themes from thematic analysis by group

Theme and Definition	Community Residents	Representative Quote	HCL Subject Matter Experts	Representative Quote
Communication	• Open & honest communication	The risks associated in a facility like that would require people to be able to be open and effectively communicating. If someone does not feel that they can bring up concerns without repercussions then it could easily lead it to individuals skipping protocols are not reporting something which could cause a biohazard or other risk factors.	• Effective internal & external communication & transparency	We’re supposed to be able to communicate clearly openly and respectfully
Trust	• Positive team dynamics & collaboration • Trust and confidence	If no one trusts one another, then it will be extremely difficult for people to work with one another. Since the [HCL] is a rather intense atmosphere that would require a lot of communication, not having a psychological safe environment would ultimately hurt the facility as a whole if people cannot be open with one another.	•Loss of trust due to lack of communication	[People] would be upfront because you don’t want to hide from your workers what had taken place. That would lead back to the trust level. If you’re gonna trust me to work here, trust me to be part of the resolution.
Incident Handling	• Enhancing learning from mistakes and feedback	I don’t believe [an HCL can] operate safely with low psychological safety as it would prevent others from speaking out against practices that are unsafe and/or hazardly. Furthermore, when an accident occurs, the individual who made the accident would be less willing to tell others about it and may feel inclined to “sweep it under the rug”	• Effective handling of incidents	I think it’s gotten better from the facility guys. The increase in reporting actual incidents is what were really looking at because then we can track the root cause.
Risk Management	• Mitigating risk of mistakes	I think [safe and reliable operation without adequate psychological safety] is extremely unlikely because [HCLs] are high risk places, considering the highly contagious animal pathogens that can be fatal to humans. Without a safe and encouraging environment it is likely that performance and efficiency will decrease heavily.	• Preparedness through drills, procedures, and continuous improvement	Controls that reduce human errors and bias can still be implemented…
Culture of Safety	• Positive organizational culture	I think that there are rules and regulations that need to be followed in a safe and efficient manner for a reason. Also, I think that there could be more safety hazards for not only the individuals, but the groups of people involved if they are not followed in a specific order.	• Positive safety culture	Psychological safety is a workplace need without psychological safety physical and behavioral safety cannot be fully integrated into culture.
Employee Well-Being	• Mitigating stress and anxiety	If people are nervous or scared to share their opinions, they will be less likely to share about problems if they arise. They will also be more nervous and more likely to make mistakes.	• Poor well-being from stress and frustration with working conditions	In a high-risk environment, adding extra stress to employees makes safety more difficult.
Community Trust	NA	NA	• Positive relationship with community & reputation	[If psychological safety is low] potential for catastrophic release would go up. The community, all they would hear is terrible things. So, it would be hard to attract good talent so the people you do attract are not good talent. There’s a lot of ramifications.”
Employee Turnover	NA	NA	• Preventing high turnover & hiring challenges	You’ll have high turnover because people will come in realize nobody cares about their safety and then leave.

For community residents, several respondents emphasized the importance of open and honest communication for identifying and addressing safety concerns. They also indicated that psychological safety fosters trust and confidence among team members, which is essential for effective incident handling in the high-risk environment of a high-containment laboratory and allows for learning from mistakes and feedback and continuous improvement. Whereas fear of repercussions may discourage reporting errors, which could compromise safety and increases the likelihood of mistakes, which can be dangerous in a high-risk environment like a high-containment laboratory. When psychological safety perceptions are low, this can lead to increased stress and anxiety, negatively impacting employees’ well-being ability to perform their tasks efficiently and safely. Psychological safety also influences team dynamics and collaboration by fostering mutual support from team members, which is vital for maintaining a safe and effective working environment. At a higher level, a positive organizational culture (i.e., culture of safety) that promotes psychological safety is seen as crucial for the well-being and performance of employees, especially in high-risk facilities. Overall, the responses suggest a consensus that psychological safety is important for operating a high-containment laboratory safely, as it contributes to better communication, trust, and error handling.

SMEs emphasized the importance of a workplace environment where employees feel comfortable speaking up about safety concerns. This is linked to physical safety, as an environment where employees fear speaking up can lead to dangerous situations or failures to follow procedures. Communication and transparency are vital for psychological safety, both internally (between employees and management) and externally (with the community). A lack of proper communication can lead to misunderstandings, fear, and loss of trust. They also emphasized the need for a strong culture of safety that prioritizes the safety of employees and the community. The absence of such a culture can lead to accidents, loss of trust, and even life-threatening situations. High employee turnover and hiring challenges are seen as a risk for safety and efficiency. Difficulties in finding and retaining qualified staff, as well as hiring constraints (e.g., regulatory-established hiring preferences) can impact the quality of the workforce. Effectively handling incidents, including quick and clear communication and involving all necessary parties, is important for maintaining trust and safety. The need for ongoing risk management and preparedness through drills, procedures, and continuous improvement in safety practices. Safety issues can have a significant impact on the community’s trust and reputation in the facility and its operations. Negative events can harm the facility’s reputation and potentially the wider agricultural industry. Poor employee well-being, including increased levels of stress and frustration among employees due to lack of communication, safety concerns, or work culture can lead to disengagement and mistakes. These themes are interconnected, with psychological safety underpinning the overall safety culture and affecting communication, employee well-being, and the handling of incidents. A lack of any of these components can lead to a breakdown in safety and trust both internally and with the community. The results presented focus on key themes related to the importance of psychological safety, communication, and organizational culture within a high-risk environment such as a high-containment laboratory.

There are some notable similarities between key themes derived from community residents and SMEs. Results from both groups highlight the importance of psychological safety in the workplace, where employees can speak up about safety concerns without fear of repercussions. This is crucial in a high-risk environment like a high-containmenthigh-containment laboratory. Open and honest communication was emphasized by both groups as essential for identifying and addressing safety concerns. Effective communication between employees and management, and with the community, helps build trust and transparency. Both groups stressed the need for a strong safety culture that prioritizes the well-being and safety of employees and the community. A positive safety culture is linked to effective handling of risks and incidents. Both results acknowledge that low psychological safety can lead to increased stress and anxiety among employees, impacting their ability to perform tasks efficiently and safely. The importance of team dynamics, collaboration, and mutual support is acknowledged by both groups as vital for maintaining a safe and effective working environment.

In addition to overlap in key themes, there were some notable differences between community residents and SMEs. Community members emphasize the role of organizational culture in promoting psychological safety, which contributes to better communication, trust, and error handling. SME results focus more on the impact of organizational culture on employee well-being and the handling of incidents. SMEs discuss the importance of properly managing incidents, including clear communication and involving all necessary parties. This aspect is less prominent among community members. SMEs emphasize ongoing risk management and preparedness through drills, procedures, and continuous improvement in safety practices, whereas community member results do not explicitly mention this aspect. The SMEs discuss the potential impact of safety issues on the community’s trust in the facility and its operations, as well as the facility’s reputation and the wider agricultural industry. This aspect is less prominent in community members’ results. SMEs mention high employee turnover and hiring challenges as risks to safety and efficiency, a theme not covered by community residents. In summary, while both results share common themes related to psychological safety, communication, and safety culture, the SMEs provided more specific insights into risk management, preparedness, and the impact on community and reputation. These differences in perceptions are to be expected, as SMEs have specialized training on the importance of safety and experience working in a high-containment laboratory.

Discussion

This study investigates psychological safety in high containment laboratories, which is crucial for maintaining safety standards in high-risk environments. By integrating the TPB [21] and SET [22] frameworks, it explores how psychological safety fosters trust and collaboration among personnel. Additionally, the study examines community and expert perceptions to inform safety protocols and community engagement strategies, aiming to enhance organizational resilience and public health outcomes.

The findings presented in the results emphasize the critical role of psychological safety in the context of laboratory safety, particularly within high-containment laboratories. The data suggests that community members (high-containment laboratory novices) recognize the link between inadequate psychological safety and unsafe operations, highlighting its significance in fostering a safe working environment. Findings also suggest that incident analyses rooted in corrective action, rather than root cause identification may increase perceptions of psychological safety. Determining the root cause of an incident can be useful for mitigating future accidents and similar incidents [41], while corrective action provides insight into how follow-up with personnel was handled. These results are aligned with the tenets of the TPB [21], which posits that individuals’ behavioral intentions are influenced by their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. In this context, psychological safety influences employees’ attitudes toward safety practices, norms regarding reporting safety concerns, and their perceived control over safety-related actions. Additionally, how incidents are reported may be important for community perceptions of safety and transparency [29].

Moreover, the emphasis on open communication, trust, and error handling underscores the importance of SET. According to this theory, individuals engage in relationships where they perceive benefits outweighing costs. In the workplace, employees are more likely to engage in safety behaviors when they perceive support from their organization (in the form of psychological safety) and anticipate positive outcomes such as trust and error learning. This aligns with the findings that psychological safety fosters trust and confidence among team members, encourages reporting of errors, and contributes to a supportive organizational culture [11, 15, 20].

Considering both community and experts’ input on the importance of psychological safety in high-containment laboratories offer invaluable insights from managerial and community health perspectives. From a managerial standpoint, integrating community feedback enhances transparency and fosters trust, vital for maintaining public support and cooperation [26]. Expert input ensures alignment with industry standards and best practices, optimizing safety protocols and operational efficiency [27–28]. From a community health perspective, understanding community perceptions informs tailored engagement strategies, promoting mutual understanding and collaboration between facilities and surrounding communities [7, 31]. By incorporating diverse perspectives, organizations can enhance safety culture, mitigate risks, and safeguard both employee well-being and community health.

Practical implications

Practical takeaways from the study’s findings include the importance of promoting psychological safety through transparent communication, building a strong safety culture, and addressing stress and anxiety among employees. Organizations can implement strategies such as fostering open dialogue, providing training on error management, and creating support systems to enhance psychological safety. Additionally, the emphasis on risk management, incident handling, and community impact highlights the need for comprehensive safety protocols and preparedness measures within high-containment laboratories. One of our key findings suggests that when communicating any incidents, providing examples of actions to mitigate or prevent incidents might contribute to the organizational context of open, transparent, and constructive sharing of ideas above and beyond the approach of analyzing and pinpointing reasons for the incidents. This strategic communication should avoid individual blame, instead emphasizing corrective action and fostering continuous feedback for organizational members [42].

In addition, results highlight that community members have a general awareness of the importance of psychological safety and the implications of low psychological safety in high-containment laboratories. Practically, this highlights an area that may benefit from enhanced communication. Facilities that operate under high-risk have the unique opportunity to inform their surrounding communities about safety status, protocols in place for protecting the community, and the importance of maintaining safety in their organizations. A recent study on a relatively new high-containment laboratory [6] found that transparency was positively associated with social support and approval from the community, which in turn was associated with positive public perceptions regarding trust, perceived benefits, and lower risk perceptions. Thus, engaging with the surrounding community can help build trust in high-containment laboratory operations, increase transparency, and promote collaboration with the public, which would help address any perceived and actual health disparities in the community. This transparent communication may enhance the relationship between surrounding communities and high-containment laboratories and ensure that health disparities are minimized for the surrounding area.

Limitations

The study has limitations which warrant consideration. First, the data are based on self-report measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could utilize objective measures or observational methods to corroborate findings. Second, the study primarily focuses on perceptions within a specific context (high-containment laboratories), limiting generalizability to other settings. Future research could explore the applicability of these findings across different industries and organizational contexts. Moreover, longitudinal studies could assess the long-term effects of psychological safety interventions on safety outcomes and organizational performance, as well as community perceptions. Third, the sample size for SMEs was small, especially compared to the community members, presents limitations when comparing the two groups and limits our ability to conduct more advanced sematic analyses. Future studies are encouraged to recruit a larger sample with the goal of uncovering additional themes and to more closely match the sample of community members. Fourth, our community sample was young, with an average age of 20 years. Due to the proximity of the high-containment laboratory to a university campus, sampling local residents naturally resulted in a younger demographic. Consequently, our findings may not be generalizable to older adults and senior citizens who may also be impacted by such a facility. We recommend that future research include a broader, more representative, and diverse sample to address this limitation and advise caution when generalizing these findings to older populations.

Conclusion

Findings of our study underscore the importance of psychological safety in promoting safety culture and effective communication within high-risk environments such as high-containment laboratories. Theoretical implications for TPB and SET highlight the role of attitudes, norms, and perceived benefits in shaping safety behaviors. Practical implications suggest strategies for enhancing psychological safety and improving safety outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Abbreviations

HRO

High–reliability organization

HCL

High–containment laboratory

TBP

Theory of planned behavior

SET

Social exchange theory

SME

Subject matter expert

Author contributions

Moana Sargent: Writing– review & editing, Methodology, Investigation. Ashley Sylvara: Writing– review & editing, Methodology, Investigation. Leah Klos: Writing– review & editing, Methodology, Investigation. Jacob Gallagher: Writing– review & editing. Kutina Cabrera: Investigation. Molly Goff: Investigation. Jesica Luna: Investigation. Alfonso Clavijo: Writing - review & editing, Co-PI. Jin Lee: Writing– original draft, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Conceptualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Funding

This study was sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Grant Agreement Number: 58-3022-3-011.

Data availability

De-identified data from community members are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research was approved by the Kansas State University Institutional Review Board (IRB-11728). All participants consented to participate in the research via either informed consent form or signing an acknowledgement of informed consent after it was verbally administered, before beginning the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.