framer;
The notion of "safety" comes from knowing, vice not knowing.
"Knowing" comes from education, experience and intuition.
"Knowing" is not merely someone's opinion, especially if they happen to be in a position of power, (under a possible guise of "knowing").
Therefore, flight safety is always about "what", not "who".
If a junior Relief Pilot calls up front to correct an altimeter setting that would have taken the aircraft into the ground in IFR weather, that is about "what", not "who".
I flew with WWII and post WWII guys who treated any question/suggestion/exclamation with derision. One kept notes on each commander and how he liked dinner and what to say when transferring fuel. SOPs were a guide. That approach killed a lot of people.
Today, if someone doesn't speak up, they're in trouble.
The intervention is then sorted out and if real, adjustments are made and the situation resolved - right then and there.
It isn't about junior people "taking over" or trying to fly someone else's airplane. If it is, that's not CRM. The captain is still the commander and makes the final decision - it is NOT a democracy in the cockpit; it is an information-gathering place based upon "what", not "who".
Your test for any situation that feels like it is coming off the rails is that. If it is about "who", (ego, power, pouting, petulance and the other childhood emotions) then someone needs to intervene and get it back to "what".
It was a tall order when the change came twenty five years or so ago. We thought that many of the guys who needed such a change the most, never "got it" and retired not knowing.
That is how it is going to be for the medical profession. It will be different because of the nature of the work. If you sense the perceptions and the actions are about "someone", you're not doing CRM. If you keep only "what" in mind, you're safer.