SACCIA RESOURCES

Explore. Experience. Apply.

SACCIA is not a set of communication rules to memorise. It is a framework for understanding, developing, and applying the communicative competencies that enable people to build shared understanding — together.

Explore the five competencies. Experience SACCIA in real communication challenges. Apply it to your own communication. Discover the science behind the framework.

Image representing the SACCIA learning journey
MEET SACCIA

SACCIA in three and a half minutes.

A concise introduction to why safe communication matters, how SACCIA works, and how its five competencies build shared understanding.

WATCH VIDEO (3:25) ▶
EXPLORE SACCIA

Understand the five competencies.

Safe communication does not depend on any single communication skill. It emerges from the interplay of five communicative competencies that enable people to bring together what they know, establish its accuracy, clarify meaning and uncertainty, account for the context in which communication occurs, and continuously adapt to one another.

Together, they enable shared understanding — the basis for coordinated decisions and actions that strengthen safety, security, and resilience.

S —

SUFFICIENCY

THE CHALLENGE No one holds the whole picture.

Relevant information rarely sits in one place.

PEOPLE EXCHANGES RECORDS MEDIA DIGITAL SPACES LIVED EXPERIENCE

One person knows something another does not. Someone notices something but does not mention it. Information is available but never sought. Or important pieces remain separate because nobody brings them into the conversation.

Relevant information can exist — and still never come together between the people who need it.

Communication becomes unsafe when we decide or act without having brought together enough of the relevant information.

What each of us knows is not enough — we need to bring what we know together into a shared information base.
THE CAPABILITY Build a sufficiently complete shared information base.

Sufficiency requires more than transmitting the information we possess.

CONTRIBUTE SEEK ACCESS ATTEND CONNECT COMPLETE

It requires communicative curiosity: contributing what others may not know, seeking what others may know, accessing information beyond the immediate interaction, attending to information already present, connecting the pieces, and checking what may still be missing.

These moves extend communication beyond the information already available to us and help bring relevant information into a shared information base.

Sufficiency is not about communicating more. It is about bringing enough relevant information into the conversation.

No one can hold the whole picture — we must build it together.
RECOGNISE IT Notice where relevant information falls out of the shared picture.

Sufficiency becomes critical wherever relevant information does not enter the shared picture — or gets lost along the way.

UNSHARED INFORMATION “I knew it, but I didn’t mention it.”
UNSOUGHT INFORMATION “We never asked.”
UNACCESSED INFORMATION “It was in the record, but nobody looked.”
UNNOTICED INFORMATION “The information was there, but nobody picked it up.”
LOST INFORMATION “Somewhere along the way, that information disappeared.”
FRAGMENTED INFORMATION “We each had part of the picture — but nobody brought it together.”

Relevant information does not become part of the shared picture simply because it exists somewhere.

Sufficiency is the communicative work of bringing relevant information into the shared picture — and connecting it together there.
TRY IT Look beyond the information already in front of you.

When safe decisions and actions depend on having enough of the relevant information, everyone must contribute to completing the shared picture.

WHAT What information might we still be missing?
WHO Who else might hold part of the picture?
WHERE Where else might there be information that could change what the picture looks like right now?

These are not steps to complete. They are ways of extending communication beyond the information already available to us.

Don’t confuse the information you have with the information that exists.
SEE SUFFICIENCY IN ACTION

The information may exist. But the shared picture may still be incomplete.

What matters is not only whether relevant information exists — but whether it enters the shared picture.

One person may know something another does not. Someone involved may hold a crucial piece of the story. Relevant information may sit in a record, remain with another profession or institution, be visible in someone’s behaviour, or simply never be sought.

Individually, all the pieces may exist. But if they do not come together in the interaction, decisions and actions can still be based on an incomplete picture — and put safety at risk.

Sufficiency brings the pieces together — so that what is known can become a shared basis for safe action.
Illustration representing how relevant information can remain distributed and outside the shared picture
PUT SUFFICIENCY INTO PRACTICE

Complete the picture together.

Sufficiency is strengthened through communicative moves that bring relevant information into the interaction, connect what is known, and reveal what may still be missing.

01
Contribute what others may not know

Information available to you may not yet be part of the shared picture.

“There’s something else that may be relevant.”
02
Seek what others may know

Other people may hold information, observations or experiences that have not yet entered the interaction.

“What else do you know that might matter here?”
03
Access information beyond the room

Relevant information may reside with other people, teams, systems, records or institutions.

“Where else might there be information that could change the picture?”
04
Attend to information already present

Relevant information may already be available in what people say, show, do or react to — without being taken up in the interaction.

“What is this person telling or showing us that we haven’t taken up yet?”
05
Connect the pieces

Information distributed across different people and sources becomes part of the shared picture only when it is brought together.

“What becomes visible when we put these pieces together?”
06
Check what may still be missing

Before drawing any final conclusions, reopen the shared picture one more time to information that may still sit outside it.

“What information might we still be missing?”

Sufficiency is not maximum information. It is enough of the relevant information to support safe understanding, decisions and actions — without important gaps, but also without unnecessary information obscuring what matters.

A —

ACCURACY

THE CHALLENGE Information and our understanding of it can both be wrong.

We are fallible human beings. Information can contain errors, sources can be mistaken, assumptions can be false, and what appears convincing may still be wrong.

And even if information is accurate, it does not guarantee our accurate understanding of it. We can misread, misidentify, misinterpret or misjudge what we see, hear, read or observe in others — often without realising it.

Also, other people can reinforce our mistakes. Agreement may increase our confidence without increasing our accuracy.

Agreement does not establish accuracy. Confidence does not establish accuracy.

The dangerous moment is when we think we know — and stop checking.
THE CAPABILITY Establish accuracy together by validating what is known and understood.

Accuracy means using the communicative space between us to test and strengthen both the information we rely on and our understanding of it.

That requires communicative effort from everyone involved: conveying information correctly, checking whether we have understood it correctly, comparing each other's perspectives, challenging our own assumptions, and corroborating what we think we know.

Another person may notice what we missed, question what we took for granted, or recognise an error we cannot see ourselves.

Four eyes may see more than two — but only when we bring our perspectives together.
RECOGNISE IT Notice when things don’t add up.

Accuracy often becomes critical when what we see, hear, remember or understand does not match what someone else sees, hears, remembers or understands — or when something seems convincing enough that we stop questioning it.

DIFFERENT OBSERVATION “I saw something different. We should check.”
DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING “That’s not how I understood what was said.”
PASSED-ON INFORMATION “I was told that — but I haven’t checked whether it’s correct.”
POSSIBLE MISIDENTIFICATION “Wait — are we sure we’re talking about the right person?”
DOUBT “Do we actually know that?”
DISCREPANCY “Something doesn’t fit here.”

Differences, doubts and mismatches are not merely problems to overcome.

They are opportunities to discover together where we may be wrong — and make our decisions and actions safer.

TRY IT Put what you think you know to the test.

When information or our understanding of it becomes a basis for safety-relevant decisions or actions, we cannot rely on confidence or agreement alone. We have to use communication to validate what we think we know.

COMPARE “What are you seeing that I may see differently?”
QUESTION “What are we assuming here?”
TEST “What would show us if we were wrong?”

The aim is not to prove that our viewpoint is correct. It is to use one another’s knowledge and perspectives to find out where we might be mistaken.

Instead of asking “Am I right?”, we could challenge ourselves: “How could we find out whether we’re right?”
SEE ACCURACY IN ACTION

Different perspectives only increase safety when we bring them together.

We all make mistakes — and we do not necessarily recognise them while we are making them.

Another person may see what we miss. We may see what they miss. And sometimes we may both be wrong.

The safety advantage does not come from simply involving more people. It comes from bringing different perspectives into direct interaction, where they can be compared, questioned and validated.

Four eyes do not automatically see more than two — only when we use communication to compare and validate what each of us sees.
Illustration representing the SACCIA Accuracy competency
PUT ACCURACY INTO PRACTICE

Make human fallibility correctable.

Accuracy means mobilising communication as a safety mechanism: making what we know, understand and may have got wrong available for interpersonal validation — so that errors can be caught and corrected, and more accurate information and shared understanding can be established.

01
Make it visible

Put your own understanding into the interaction so that others can respond.

“This is how I understood it. How did you?”
02
Surface discrepancies

When something does not match, bring the discrepancy into the communication so that it can be examined together.

“Something doesn’t fit here.”
03
Compare perspectives

Compare what different people see, know or understand rather than assuming that your perspectives match.

“How are you seeing this?”
04
Question assumptions

Notice when something is being taken as true without actually knowing that it is.

“Are we assuming that, or do we know it for sure?”
05
Trace what you rely on

Find out where information, interpretations or judgements came from — especially when they have passed through other people.

“Where does that information come from?”
06
Test, corroborate and correct

Check what you think you know. If something turns out to be wrong, bring the correction back into the interaction.

“What else could we check this against?”
READY TO GO FURTHER?

Put Accuracy to Work: Dealing with Disinformation

Questionable information makes the Accuracy challenge particularly visible. See how all five SACCIA competencies work together to build accurate shared understanding.

PRACTISE WITH DISINFORMATION
C —

CLARITY

THE CHALLENGE Information can be complete and accurate, but still remain unclear.

What seems perfectly clear to us is embedded in our own knowledge, experience and assumptions — which others do not automatically share.

We may express something vaguely, indirectly or imprecisely and assume others will know what we mean — while what we say or do may have more than one possible meaning.

We may hear, read or observe something and fill in the meaning ourselves. Or we may notice that something remains unclear — and continue anyway.

Uncertainty and ambiguity are normal parts of our everyday interactions.

Uncertainty is not dangerous in itself — it becomes dangerous when we proceed as though it does not exist.
THE CAPABILITY Clarify meaning and manage uncertainty together.

Clarity means expressing and interpreting meaning concretely and precisely enough, and using communication to work through ambiguity or uncertainty about what is meant.

That requires communicative effort from everyone involved: making our own meaning explicit, noticing vagueness or ambiguity in verbal and nonverbal communication, bringing remaining uncertainty into the interaction, and working through it together.

Shared understanding does not require absolute certainty. It requires us to establish sufficient clarity.

Clarity is not something one person delivers — it is something we establish together in our interaction.
RECOGNISE IT Notice when you start to wonder.

Clarity becomes a critical safety competence when meaning is vague, ambiguous or assumed — or when uncertainty is noticed but not brought into the conversation.

ASSUMED UNDERSTANDING “They’ll know what I mean.”
INFERRED MEANING “I think I know what they mean.”
VAGUE MEANING “You know... the usual way.”
AMBIGUOUS SIGNAL “I’m not sure what that meant.”
RELUCTANCE TO ASK “I don’t want to ask again.”
PRESSURE TO MOVE ON “It’ll probably be fine.”
Unclear communication does not always look like confusion — it can hide behind vague language, assumptions, silence, politeness and apparent agreement.
TRY IT Bring what is unclear into the conversation.

When you are unsure what someone means, when what is said could be understood in different ways, or when people are relying on assumptions rather than making themselves explicit, we need to bring that uncertainty into the conversation.

NOTICE “What is still unclear?”
ASK “What exactly do we mean by that?”
RESOLVE “What can we do to clarify this?”
Not every uncertainty can be resolved, and we cannot trade it for a false sense of certainty. Uncertainty is a call for safe communication.
SEE CLARITY IN ACTION

More information does not automatically create more clarity.

We can have all the necessary information and still be unclear about what it means, how it should be understood, or what it requires us to do.

The problem is no longer what is missing from the shared picture. It is what remains unclear within it.

Words may be vague. Instructions may leave room for different interpretations. A gesture, expression or reaction may be ambiguous. And people may construct different meanings from the same communication without realising it.

This is where interpersonal communication serves a critical safety function: it provides a mechanism for reducing and managing uncertainty between people. Through interaction, uncertainty can be surfaced, ambiguities explored and meaning progressively clarified.

Clarity brings uncertainty into the interaction — where it can be worked through together.
Illustration representing the SACCIA Clarity competency
PUT CLARITY INTO PRACTICE

Make the unclear explicit. Bring uncertainty into the interaction.

Clarity means mobilising communication to make intended meaning explicit and uncertainty discussable. Use what the interaction requires to establish shared understanding.

01
Make it explicit

Express what you mean concretely rather than leaving others to fill in the meaning themselves.

“What I mean specifically is...”
02
Surface uncertainty

If you are unsure, say so rather than allowing silence or apparent agreement to suggest that everything is clear.

“I’m still not clear on this.”
03
Locate the ambiguity

Identify the particular word, behaviour, instruction or implication that could be understood in more than one way.

“When you say ___, what exactly do you mean?”
04
Make your interpretation visible

Put your understanding into the conversation rather than assuming that it probably matches what the other person meant.

“I understood this to mean ___. Is that what you meant?”
05
Make it concrete

Use examples, demonstrations or specifics when words alone leave too much room for interpretation.

“Could you show me what that would look like?”
06
Work with what remains uncertain

Never turn uncertainty into certainty simply because a decision has to be made.

“We don’t know that yet. What can we do to clarify it?”

Clarity does not mean saying everything in maximum detail. It means making what we mean clear enough, and what remains uncertain explicit enough, to establish the shared understanding needed for safe decisions and actions.

C —

CONTEXTUALISATION

THE CHALLENGE Every conversation is embedded in its surrounding context.

We never communicate with words alone. Every interaction takes place within a particular function, relationship, time, environment and culture.

These conditions can directly constrain or facilitate our ability to establish shared understanding with one another. We may be talking to the wrong person, or pursuing different goals. Trust, conflict or hierarchy may affect what can be said or challenged. Information may come too early or too late. There may be too little time, too much noise or not enough privacy. Different norms and expectations may affect what is expressed, how it is interpreted, and what feels possible or appropriate to do.

Context can also affect how we interpret what is happening. What we already know about a person, relationship or situation may help us understand an interaction — or become a frame that biases what we see and hear.

Context is therefore not simply something communication should fit. It changes the conditions under which shared understanding can be jointly established.

The challenge is not to get rid of context — it is to recognise how the context in which we communicate is affecting our ability to establish shared understanding.
THE CAPABILITY Disarm the constraining effects of context and leverage its facilitating effects for shared understanding.

Contextualisation means using communication to keep the functional, relational, chronological, environmental and cultural conditions in which every interaction takes place from becoming barriers to shared understanding — and to use them where they can facilitate it.

Relational history may help us understand one another — or bias how we interpret what is happening. Hierarchy may inhibit challenge, while trust may enable it. Limited time may constrain communication, while recognising the time available can help us focus on what needs to be understood.

Importantly, we may not be able to change the contextual condition itself. Hierarchy may remain. Time may still be limited. A difficult relational history may still exist. What communication can change is the effect these conditions have on the interaction.

The capability thus lies in recognising the contextual forces that are affecting shared understanding, bringing their influence into the communicative process, and jointly disarming their constraining effects or leveraging their facilitating effects.

Context is always part of the interaction. Contextualisation is the capability that keeps it from becoming a barrier to shared understanding — and uses it where it can help.
RECOGNISE IT Notice what surrounds your interaction.

Every interaction takes place within five dimensions of context: Function, Relationship, Time, Environment, and Culture. They are omnipresent, operate simultaneously, and can either constrain or facilitate shared understanding.

FUNCTION Are we talking to the right people, and what are we each trying to accomplish?
RELATIONSHIP How is what’s between us affecting our ability to establish shared understanding?
TIME How are timing, urgency and the time available affecting our shared understanding?
ENVIRONMENT How are our surroundings affecting our ability to establish shared understanding?
CULTURE How are norms and expectations affecting what we say, hear and understand?
INTERACTION
The same contextual condition can constrain or facilitate shared understanding. The first step is recognising what it is doing to the interaction.
TRY IT Take charge of what the context does to the interaction.

In practice, Contextualisation means recognising how contextual forces affect our ability to establish shared understanding — then disarming what constrains it and leveraging what facilitates it.

DETECT “What contextual forces are at work here — and how are they affecting our shared understanding?”
DISARM “What is inhibiting shared understanding — and how can we change its effect on our interaction?”
LEVERAGE “What in this context could help us establish shared understanding — and how can we make use of it?”

A hierarchy may remain a hierarchy. Time may still be limited. A difficult relational history may still exist. Contextualisation does not require us to remove these conditions — it changes what they do to the interaction.

Detect what is affecting the interaction. Disarm what inhibits shared understanding. Leverage what helps establish it The context may remain — but its communicative effect can change.
SEE CONTEXTUALISATION IN ACTION

The elephant is already in the room.

Something can affect a conversation without ever being mentioned.

A conflict may sit between two people. A hierarchy may make someone hesitate. An expectation may remain unspoken. Everyone may know that time is running out — while continuing as though it were not.

Ignoring these conditions does not remove their influence. They remain part of the interaction, affecting what is said, withheld, heard and understood.

Contextualisation brings that influence into the communicative process, where we can deliberately take control of how it affects our shared understanding.

The elephant does not disappear because nobody mentions it. Bringing it into the conversation can change what it does to the interaction.
Elephant in the room illustrating a contextual influence that affects communication without being addressed
PUT CONTEXTUALISATION INTO PRACTICE

Turn contextual conditions into resources for shared understanding.

Function, relationships, time, environment and culture are already part of the interaction. Contextualisation means working with their effects: disarming what inhibits shared understanding and deliberately using what can facilitate it.

01
Reframe around a shared objective

Different people may enter the same interaction with different purposes, priorities or concerns. Rather than allowing these to pull the interaction apart, make them visible and bring the conversation back to what needs to be achieved together.

“What do we need to achieve together — and how can we get there while accounting for our different concerns?”
02
Use relational position deliberately

Hierarchy, trust, conflict, familiarity and relational history affect what people feel able to say, ask or challenge. Use your position in the relationship to lower barriers where you can — by inviting challenge, naming a concern or making it safer for something difficult to be said.

“I may be missing something. If you see a concern, I need you to tell me.”
03
Prioritise under time constraints

When time is limited, do not simply communicate faster. Make the constraint explicit and establish what must be understood before a decision is made or action is taken.

“Given the time we have, what do we need to make sure we understand before we act?”
04
Remove or compensate for environmental barriers

Noise, interruptions, lack of privacy and other environmental conditions can interfere with what can be said, heard or understood. Change the conditions where possible. Where they cannot be changed, adapt the interaction to compensate for their effect.

“There’s too much noise here. Let’s find a quieter place for this conversation.”
05
Surface assumptions and implicit rules

Cultural, professional and organisational norms can silently determine what people expect, assume, or feel permitted to say and challenge. Bring relevant assumptions into the conversation rather than allowing them to operate as though they were shared.

“I think we may be working from different assumptions here. Let us briefly talk about them.”
06
Test context-driven interpretations

What we know about a person, relationship or situation can help us interpret what is happening — but it can also bias what we see and hear. Treat contextual knowledge as information, not proof, and check whether your interpretation fits what is actually happening now.

“When you said that, I took it as criticism. Is that how you meant it?”

Contextualisation does not mean changing the context. It means using communication to change what contextual conditions do to shared understanding — disarming what inhibits it and leveraging what can help us establish it.

IA —

INTERPERSONAL ADAPTATION

THE CHALLENGE The same communication does not work for everyone.

Communication can be sufficient, accurate, clear and contextualised — and still become a safety threat when the people involved are unable to follow one another and reach shared understanding.

We differ in how much information we can take in, how quickly we can process it, and how information needs to be expressed for us to follow. We also differ in the language and level of detail that work for us.

And our emotions can change what we are able to attend to, understand, express or respond to.

These needs are not stable. They may change during the same conversation — and they often become visible before anyone puts them into words.

Safe communication requires us to stay responsive to one another throughout the interaction.
THE CAPABILITY Adapt to one another’s communicative needs.

Interpersonal Adaptation means recognising and responding to one another’s needs and expectations as they are expressed — verbally or nonverbally — during the conversation.

That may mean changing the amount of information, adjusting our pace, using different words, explaining something differently, responding to emotion, or changing how the conversation continues.

Needs and expectations may be stated directly. But more often, they become visible through nonverbal cues — facial expression, tone of voice, hesitation, silence, or changes in participation.

The point is not to decide for another person what they need. It is to bring what becomes noticeable into the conversation and work it out together.

Adaptation happens between us — not to one of us.
RECOGNISE IT Notice what happens between you.

Interpersonal Adaptation often becomes necessary before anyone says, “I can’t follow you anymore.”

TOO MUCH AT ONCE Responses slow. Attention drifts. Messages are visibly becoming hard to process.
THE WORDS AREN’T WORKING Jargon, terminology or the explanation itself seems to be losing the other person.
EMOTION TAKES SPACE A face changes. Eyes fill. What was just said has affected what can be taken in or responded to.
NONVERBALS CHANGE Gaze, expression, posture, tone or silence changes without an explanation being given.
PARTICIPATION DROPS Questions stop. Someone who was correcting, questioning or contributing becomes quiet.
EXPECTATIONS DON’T MATCH The conversation is not proceeding in the way one of you needs or expected.
A signal is not an explanation — bring what you notice into the conversation and work out together what is needed.
TRY IT Adjust to each other as you go.

Interpersonal Adaptation does not follow a fixed sequence. These are moves you can return to whenever they are needed.

NOTICE Are we still able to follow and respond to one another?
BRING IT IN “I have the sense something changed just now. Am I reading that right?”
ADAPT TOGETHER “What do we need from each other right now?”

That may mean slowing down, changing the amount of information, finding different words, addressing an emotional response, changing how you continue — or agreeing together to continue later.

Adaptation is not one person deciding for another — it is something we work out together.
SEE INTERPERSONAL ADAPTATION IN ACTION

People often show before they tell.

Someone hears frightening news and stops taking in what follows. Someone else goes quiet because the terminology has lost them. Another person is still listening, but too much information is arriving too quickly.

We often see it before anyone says it: the eyes move away, the response takes longer, the face changes, the questions stop.

Those signs matter. But they do not tell us exactly what they mean. Interpersonal Adaptation means bringing them into the conversation and finding out together what is needed.

Notice what changes. Make it discussable. Adapt together.
Illustration representing the SACCIA Interpersonal Adaptation competency
PUT INTERPERSONAL ADAPTATION INTO PRACTICE

Keep adapting to one another.

Interpersonal adaptation means staying responsive to changing needs and expectations within the interaction. Notice when communication is no longer working as intended, bring what you observe into the interaction, and jointly determine what is needed to ensure that shared understanding can be attained.

01
Attend to the whole communication

Listen to the words — and notice gaze, facial expression, tone, hesitation, silence, behaviour and changes in participation.

“What are we telling each other — verbally and nonverbally?”
02
Bring what you notice into the conversation

What you notice may tell you that something needs attention. It does not tell you what it means. Check rather than assume.

“I noticed something changed just now. Am I reading that right?”
03
Adapt the pace and amount

Change the amount, complexity, pace or order of information when it becomes difficult to follow or process.

“Do we need to slow down or take this in smaller parts?”
04
Find language that works between you

Change terminology, wording or the explanation when the language being used is not helping you understand one another.

“Would another way of explaining this help?”
05
Respond to emotion

When emotion affects what someone can hear, understand, express or respond to, address it rather than simply continuing as before.

“I can see this has affected you. What do we need right now?”
06
Keep checking the fit

Needs and expectations can change while you are communicating. Keep checking rather than assuming that an earlier adjustment is still right.

“Is this still working for us?”

Interpersonal Adaptation is not about maximum accommodation. It involves adapting to one another’s cognitive, linguistic and emotional needs so that shared understanding can be established together.

SACCIA CARDS

A visual introduction to safe communication.

Move through the eight cards to see how the SACCIA framework comes together.

What keeps us safe? Introducing SACCIA
SACCIA — the five communication capabilities
Sufficiency — Are we missing anything?
Accuracy — Could we be wrong?
Clarity — What isn't clear yet?
Contextualisation — What's compromising our conversation?
Interpersonal Adaptation — What do we need from each other?
Safe communication is the result of five capabilities working together

Swipe, click a card, or use the arrows to continue.

KEEP THE CARDS

Take SACCIA with you.

Keep the full eight-card set as a practical reference for your next conversation — or share it with your team.

↓ DOWNLOAD THE SACCIA CARDS
EXPERIENCE SACCIA

See the framework at work.

Explore how the five SACCIA competencies help us understand real communication challenges across different settings.

CASE STUDY

Emergency Medicine

A clinical handover in which the patient repeatedly tried to correct inaccurate information — but was not included as an active communication partner.

THE SITUATION

A handover during acute stroke care.

A 39-year-old female patient had been admitted to the stroke unit with an acute stroke. On the morning after her admission, clinical staff conducted the handover to the day shift using the SBAR framework for structured communication. The team members held their documents and pens, took notes, made little eye contact with each other — and even less with the patient. The only greeting was a brief “Good morning.” The patient was allowed to listen, but not to speak.

As the handover progressed, the patient noticed that — as on the previous evening — incorrect information about her symptoms was being passed on. She had repeatedly pointed out that she was not experiencing “pain” in her right arm, but rather “a mild numbness of approximately 5%.” This correction had not been documented.

During the morning handover, her symptom was described as “tingling” — the third incorrect description within twelve hours. The patient tried to politely and cautiously interrupt to correct the mistake. The physician handing over stopped her with a clear gesture, raising her hand like a traffic officer, and said, “We need to get through this information first, otherwise it gets complicated. Please hold on to your thought and share it at the end.”

Just hours after suffering an acute stroke, the patient struggled to retain even brief thoughts. There was no opportunity to write anything down. After the handover, the clinical team was in a hurry, and the patient no longer remembered what she had wanted to say. To this day, the error remains uncorrected in her medical record.

YOUR TURN

What would you notice?

Before revealing the SACCIA analysis, consider:

  • Whose information was included — and whose was not?
  • What information should have been validated?
  • Where did uncertainty remain unresolved?
  • How did time pressure, roles and power shape the exchange?
  • What did the patient need from the communication in that moment?
THE SACCIA ANALYSIS

Five capabilities. One communication process.

S
Sufficiency

Not all relevant information entered the communication exchange. The patient's repeated attempts to correct the misunderstanding were disregarded, excluding a central source of safety-critical information.

A
Accuracy

The clinical team did not use communication with one another or with the patient to validate the accuracy of the information being exchanged. The misinformation therefore remained uncorrected.

C
Clarity

Open questions and uncertainty were not given space. The patient was asked to stay quiet, and the professionals involved in the handover did not raise follow-up questions.

C
Contextualisation

The team and patient were pursuing different immediate goals, while time pressure and power dynamics shaped the interaction. These contextual factors were neither acknowledged nor resolved.

IA
Interpersonal Adaptation

The patient's cognitive impairment following an acute stroke was not taken into account when she was asked to remember her thought and raise it later — something she could not reliably do in that moment.

From analysis to safer practice:

Safe communication requires all relevant voices to be included, opportunities for correction to be built into the exchange, uncertainty to be given space, contextual pressures to be addressed, and communication to be adapted to the person's actual communicative abilities.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY →
CASE STUDY

Public Communication during COVID-19

During the pandemic, public communication did far more than transmit information. It shaped trust, perceived safety, emotional responses and people’s willingness to act.

THE SITUATION

Crisis communication under extreme uncertainty.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed an unprecedented and prolonged burden on societies around the world — medically, economically, socially, and psychologically. In this context, public communication about the virus became both a critical tool for crisis management and a key driver of growing social division.

Friendships fractured, families grew apart, and society split into increasingly polarised camps. The Swiss COM-COVID study, led by EISCOM President Prof. Dr. Annegret Hannawa, explored this phenomenon in depth.

YOUR TURN

What would you notice?

Before revealing the SACCIA analysis, consider:

  • Can too much information become unsafe?
  • How should uncertainty be communicated when knowledge is still evolving?
  • What happens when messages are factually correct but difficult to understand?
  • How might timing, trust and relationships shape how messages are received?
  • Can one message meet the needs of an entire population?
THE SACCIA ANALYSIS

Five capabilities for communicating safely in crisis.

S
Sufficiency

Many people experienced the volume of information as overwhelming. More messages did not necessarily create a more useful shared information base — they often created additional noise and confusion.

A
Accuracy

Facts were often communicated rapidly while knowledge was still incomplete or evolving. Uncertainty was not always made sufficiently visible, and opportunities for shared validation across institutions were limited.

C
Clarity

Communication was at times technical, confusing or contradictory. People could receive large amounts of information while still remaining uncertain about what it meant or what they should do.

C
Contextualisation

Trust depended not only on what was communicated, but also on timing, relationships, purpose and whether people felt acknowledged rather than ignored or excluded.

IA
Interpersonal Adaptation

Public messaging was often designed as “one size fits all.” Different levels of understanding, emotional states and communicative needs were not always sufficiently addressed.

From analysis to safer practice:

Safe crisis communication does not simply deliver more facts. It helps people make sense of what is known, understand what remains uncertain, feel acknowledged, maintain trust and stay capable of acting together.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY →
CASE STUDY

Societal Division

What happens when people no longer feel able to speak openly across differences — and communication becomes something to avoid rather than a way to understand one another?

THE SITUATION

Communication in a toxically polarised environment.

“When I mention at family gatherings that I'm in favour of open borders, my uncle throws a tantrum. When I say at climate protests that migration can also be a burden, people yell at me. At some point, I just stopped voicing my opinion.”

This striking quote captures a broader reality experienced by many young people, as reflected in a large-scale survey conducted by Debating Europe. Respondents described the current state of society as toxically polarised. Many said they feel restricted in how they speak, overwhelmed emotionally, and powerless in conversations. Core issues like migration, the climate crisis, gender debates, economic inequality, and Ukraine policy often lead people to retreat into so-called opinion bubbles. A significant number reported avoiding political topics with friends altogether. Most said they only share views with like-minded people — and actively avoid disagreement out of fear of escalation, rejection, or being misunderstood.

EISCOM is committed to engaging with these challenges and addressing the growing threat of societal polarisation. We therefore present here an exemplary application of the SACCIA competency model in this context.

YOUR TURN

What would you notice?

Before revealing the SACCIA analysis, consider:

  • Which perspectives are no longer entering the conversation?
  • Which assumptions are being repeated rather than checked?
  • What is being left deliberately vague or unsaid?
  • Which hidden contextual pressures are shaping the interaction?
  • Are people adapting to understand one another — or simply to stay safe?
THE SACCIA ANALYSIS

Five capabilities for communication across difference.

S
Sufficiency

Diverse perspectives were systematically missing from the shared information base. Conversations stayed within homogeneous groups, limiting the information needed for genuine shared understanding.

A
Accuracy

Interpretations and assumptions were rarely validated together. Preconceived views remained unexamined, allowing misunderstandings and misinformation to persist.

C
Clarity

Fear of rejection encouraged ambiguous language, euphemisms and omission. Sensitive issues were often circumvented rather than clarified through open questions.

C
Contextualisation

Family hierarchies, cultural tensions, ideological group norms and the escalation logic of social media shaped communication but were rarely made explicit or addressed.

IA
Interpersonal Adaptation

People often adjusted their behaviour strategically — staying silent or agreeing — rather than responding to the informational and emotional needs of the other person.

From analysis to safer practice:

Safe dialogue across difference requires actively inviting multiple perspectives, validating interpretations together, allowing uncertainty to be spoken, making contextual barriers visible and adapting responsively rather than tactically.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY →
CASE STUDY

Bullying

A young person’s distress was visible — but the communication around it failed to connect the information, context and people needed to act.

THE SITUATION

A child in distress. A fragmented response.

Alex had started at a new school just a few months earlier. From the beginning, some of his classmates systematically excluded and threatened him. One afternoon on his way home, an older student confronted him together with a boy from his class. The older student openly threatened him: “If you insult my friend again, I’ll beat you to death!” At the same time, the classmate made an obscene gesture and sped past him provocatively.

This was just one of many distressing experiences Alex faced almost daily — from having his jacket and shoes hidden by a group of classmates to repeated serious threats. On one occasion, they even locked him in a classroom by holding the door shut so he couldn’t get out.

The school responded helplessly, claiming many of the incidents occurred off campus and were therefore not their responsibility.

The ongoing bullying took a clear toll on Alex’s mental health and academic performance. But instead of addressing the root causes or ensuring his safety, the school sent him to be formally diagnosed with ADHD — as a way of explaining his declining grades.

Rather than receiving support, Alex felt further stigmatised by the diagnostic process and was eventually placed on medical leave.

YOUR TURN

What would you notice?

Before revealing the SACCIA analysis, consider:

  • Who held pieces of information that others did not?
  • Which interpretation of Alex’s behaviour was accepted without enough validation?
  • Were responsibilities and next steps actually clear?
  • What contextual information changed the meaning of his declining performance?
  • What did Alex need emotionally and communicatively from the adults around him?
THE SACCIA ANALYSIS

Five capabilities for seeing the whole problem.

S
Sufficiency

Important information about the bullying was not fully shared across the school, parents and external support services. The information exchange effectively stalled.

A
Accuracy

Alex’s decline in performance was interpreted as a medical issue. That interpretation was not sufficiently challenged against the broader evidence of bullying and distress.

C
Clarity

Roles, responsibilities and the path forward were unclear. Communication did not establish who should act, how, or what should happen next.

C
Contextualisation

The threats and social circumstances surrounding Alex — including what happened on his way to school — were not adequately incorporated into the assessment of the problem.

IA
Interpersonal Adaptation

Communication was not sufficiently adapted to Alex’s emotional state and individual communicative needs, adding further stress rather than creating safety.

From analysis to safer practice:

Addressing visible symptoms is not enough. Safe communication requires the wider social context to be recognised, relevant information to be connected across people and systems, assumptions to be checked, responsibilities to be clarified, and communication to respond sensitively to the needs of the person affected.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY →
APPLY SACCIA

Turn the framework into practice.

SACCIA is a communication capability — and capabilities develop through practice. Use real communication challenges to practise applying all five competencies together.

SACCIA CHALLENGE

Put yourself to the test what you notice.

Watch before you analyse. Follow the reconstruction of a real emergency rescue, then explore what happened between people through all five SACCIA competencies.

TAKE THE SACCIA CHALLENGE →
SACCIA ANALYSIS

Reflect on your own experience.

Where does the shoe pinch? Take one recent communication experience and examine what happened through all five SACCIA competencies.

START THE SACCIA ANALYSIS →
SACCIA PRACTICE

Practise SACCIA with disinformation.

Don’t practise winning the argument. Take a real piece of disinformation you encounter and practise building shared understanding through all five SACCIA competencies.

START THE SACCIA PRACTICE →
THE SCIENCE BEHIND SACCIA

From research to the SACCIA framework.

01
02
03
04
05

THE PROBLEM

Communication is repeatedly implicated in preventable harm.

THE QUESTION

What actually makes communication safe or unsafe?

THE EVIDENCE

Systematic analysis revealed five recurring communicative weaknesses.

FROM WEAKNESSES
TO CAPABILITIES

SACCIA translates recurring vulnerabilities into communicative capabilities.

THE FRAMEWORK

Five competencies working together enable shared understanding and support safety, security and resilience.

DEVELOP SACCIA COMPETENCE

Knowing about communication is not the same as being able to communicate safely.

SACCIA is a competency framework. Its capabilities develop through interpersonal practice, feedback, reflection and adaptation — particularly in situations where communication becomes difficult.

EISCOM supports individuals, teams and organisations in developing and applying SACCIA competence.

DEVELOP SACCIA WITH EISCOM →