Patients' Experiences With Communication-and-Resolution Programs After Medical Injury

Medical Malpractice in Otolaryngology within the United States: A LexisNexis-Based Demographic Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Otolaryngologists are at a significantly greater risk of being sued than most other physicians. To date, there is a lack of studies characterizing trends in otolaryngology malpractice claims. To assess these trends and risk variables, this study examined malpractice claims against otolaryngologists.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

SETTING

LexisNexis Jury Verdicts and Settlements.

METHODS

The LexisNexis legal database was used to locate jury verdicts and settlements related to medical malpractice in otolaryngology, from 2018 to 2024. The study did not include any claims covered by the Social Security Disability Insurance, Workers' Compensation, Healthcare Law, or Criminal Law and Procedure categories. Temporal trends were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors.

RESULTS

Out of 903 items, 79 reported malpractice cases were included (mean age 44.5; 60.3% female). The most sued subspecialty was head and neck oncology (32.5%). Negligence (93.7%) was the primary cause of action. Of cases sent to the jury, 87.7% of them resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The mean plaintiff verdict payout was $7,432,508.06 and the mean identified settlement amount was $1,562,500.00. Physical injury (62.0%) was the highest type of harm. Regional analysis indicated a higher percentage of cases from New York favored the defendant (21.1% vs 13.6%; P = .034).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights key trends in otolaryngology malpractice claims, emphasizing the prevalence in cases of head and neck surgery, primarily attributed to negligence. By identifying trends and risk factors, otolaryngologists can get a better understanding of the dynamics surrounding malpractice.

Patient perspectives on adverse event investigations in health care

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade attention has grown to give patients and next of kin (P/N) more substantial roles in adverse event investigations. Adverse event investigations occur after adverse events that resulted in death or severe injury. Few studies have focused on patient perspectives on their involvement in such investigations. The present study sets out to investigate how P/N and patient representatives (client councils and the Patient Federation Netherlands) view the involvement of P/N in adverse event investigations, particularly whether and why they want to involved, and how they want to shape their involvement.

METHODS

The study features qualitative data on three levels: interviews with P/N (personal), focus groups with representatives of client councils (institutional), and an interview with the Patient Federation Netherlands (national). Researchers used inductive, thematic analysis and validated the results through data source triangulation.

RESULTS

The initiative taken by the hospitals in this study provided P/N with the space to feel heard and a position as legitimate stakeholder. P/N appreciated the opportunity to choose whether and how they wanted to be involved in the investigation as stakeholders. P/N emphasized the need for hospitals to learn from the investigations, but for them the investigation was also part of a more encompassing relationship. P/N's views showed the inextricable link between the first conversation with the health care professional and the investigation, and the ongoing care after the investigation was finalized. Hence, an adverse event investigation is part of a broader experience when understood from a patient perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

An adverse event investigation should be considered as part of an existing relationship between P/N and hospital that starts before the investigation and continues during follow up care. It is crucial for hospitals to take the initiative in the investigation and in the involvement of P/N. P/N motivations for involvement can be understood as driven by agency or communion. Agentic motivations include being an active participant by choice, while communion motivations include the need to be heard.

Disclosure of Adverse Events and Medical Errors: A Framework for Anesthesiologists

Ethical disclosure of adverse events (AE) presents opportunities and challenges for physicians and has unique ramifications for anesthesiologists. AE disclosure is supported by patients, regulatory organizations, and physicians. Disclosure is part of a physician's ethical duty toward patients, supports fully informed patient decision making, and is a critical component of root cause analysis. Barriers to AE disclosure include disruption of the doctor-patient relationship, fear of litigation, and inadequate training. Apology laws intended to support disclosure and mitigate concern for adverse legal consequences have not fulfilled that initial promise. Training and institutional communication programs support physicians in providing competent, ethical AE disclosure.

Associations Between Organizational Communication and Patients' Experience of Prolonged Emotional Impact Following Medical Errors

BACKGROUND

The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood.

METHODS

The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients' experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year).

RESULTS

Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5-2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1-2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3-12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03-2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1-7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3-3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3-3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8-12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2-3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2-9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1-3.9]).

CONCLUSION

Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

Adverse events and perceived abandonment: learning from patients' accounts of medical mishaps

BACKGROUND

Adverse medical events affect 10% of American households annually, inducing a variety of harms and attitudinal changes. The impact of adverse events on perceived abandonment by patients and their care partners has not been methodically assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To identify ways in which providers, patients and families responded to medical mishaps, linking these qualitatively and statistically to reported feelings of abandonment and sequelae induced by perceived abandonment.

METHODS

Mixed-methods analysis of responses to the Massachusetts Medical Errors Recontact survey with participants reporting a medical error within the past 5 years. The survey consisted of forty closed and open-ended questions examining adverse medical events and their consequences. Respondents were asked whether they felt 'that the doctors abandoned or betrayed you or your family'. Open-ended responses were analysed with a coding schema by two clinician coders.

RESULTS

Of the 253 respondents, 34.5% initially and 20% persistently experienced abandonment. Perceived abandonment could be traced to interactions before (18%), during (34%) and after (45%) the medical mishap. Comprehensive post-incident communication reduced abandonment for patients staying with the provider associated with the mishap. However, 68.4% of patients perceiving abandonment left their original provider; for them, post-error communication did not increase the probability of resolution. Abandonment accounted for half the post-event loss of trust in clinicians.

LIMITATIONS

Survey-based data may under-report the impact of perceived errors on vulnerable populations. Moreover, patients may not be cognizant of all forms of adverse events or all sequelae to those events. Our data were drawn from a single state and time period.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the deleterious impact of persisting abandonment merits attention in programmes responding to patient safety concerns. Enhancing patient engagement in the aftermath of an adverse medical event has the potential to reinforce therapeutic alliances between patients and their subsequent clinicians.

Risk management and empirical study of the doctor-patient relationship: based on 1790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes in China

BACKGROUND

Compensation for medical damage liability disputes (CMDLD) seriously hinders the healthy development of hospitals and undermines the harmony of the doctor-patient relationships (DPR). Risk management in the DPR has become an urgent issue of the day. The study aims to provide a comprehensive description of CMDLD in China and explore its influencing factors, and make corresponding recommendations for the management of risks in the DPR.

METHODS

This study extracted data from the China Judgment Online - the official judicial search website with the most comprehensive coverage. Statistical analysis of 1,790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes (COMDLD) available from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS

COMDLD generally tended to increase with the year and was unevenly distributed by regions; the compensation rate was 52.46%, the median compensation was 134,900 yuan and the maximum was 2,234,666 yuan; the results of the single factor analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the compensation for different years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures (P < 0.05); the correlation analysis showed that types of hospitals were significantly negatively associated with regions (R=-0.082, P < 0.05); trial procedures were significantly negatively correlated with years (R=-0.484, P < 0.001); compensat- ion was significantly positively correlated with years, regions, and treatment attributes (R = 0.098-0.294, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with trial procedures (R=-0.090, P < 0.01); regression analysis showed that years, treatment attributes, and regions were the main factors affecting the CMDLD (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures affect the outcome of CMDLD. This paper further puts forward relevant suggestions and countermeasures for the governance of doctor-patient risks based on the empirical results. Including rational allocation of medical resources to narrow the differences between regions; promoting the expansion and sinking of high-quality resources to improve the level of medical services in hospitals at all levels; and developing a third-party negotiation mechanism for medical disputes to reduce the cost of medical litigation.

Patient characteristics of, and remedial interventions for, complaints and medico-legal claims against doctors: a rapid review of the literature

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain if patient's characteristics are associated with complaints and claims against doctors. Additionally, evidence for the effectiveness of remedial interventions on rates of complaints and claims against doctors has not been synthesised.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of recent literature to answer: Question 1 "What are the common characteristics and circumstances of patients who are most likely to complain or bring a claim about the care they have received from a doctor?" and Question 2 "What initiatives or interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing complaints and claims about the care patients have received from a doctor?". We used a systematic search (most recently in July 2023) of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature. Studies were screened against inclusion criteria and critically appraised in duplicate using standard tools. Results were summarised using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

From 8079 search results, we reviewed the full text of 250 studies. We included 25 studies: seven for Question 1 (6 comparative studies with controls and one systematic review) and 18 studies for Question 2 (14 uncontrolled pre-post studies, 2 comparative studies with controls and 2 systematic reviews). Most studies were set in hospitals across a mix of medical specialties. Other than for patients with mental health conditions (two studies), no other patient characteristics demonstrated either a strong or consistent effect on the rate of complaints or claims against their treating doctors. Risk management programs (6 studies), and communication and resolution programs (5 studies) were the most studied of 6 intervention types. Evidence for reducing complaints and medico-legal claims, costs or premiums and more timely management was apparent for both types of programs. Only 1 to 3 studies were included for peer programs, medical remediation, shared decision-making, simulation training and continuing professional development, with few generalisable results.

CONCLUSION

Few patient characteristics can be reliably related to the likelihood of medico-legal complaints or claims. There is some evidence that interventions can reduce the number and costs of claims, the number of complaints, and the timeliness of claims. However, across both questions, the strength of the evidence is very weak and is based on only a few studies or study designs that are highly prone to bias.

Virtual reality evidence on the impact of physicians' open versus defensive communication on patients

Using virtual reality (VR) in an experimental setting, we analyse how communicating more openly about a medical incident influences patients' feelings and behavioural intentions. Using VR headsets, participants were immersed in an actual hospital room where they were told by a physician that a medical incident had occurred. In a given scenario, half of the participants were confronted by a physician who communicated openly about the medical incident, while the other half were confronted with the exact same scenario except that the physician employed a very defensive communication strategy. The employed technology allowed us to keep everything else in the environment constant. Participants exposed to open disclosure were significantly more likely to take further steps (such as contacting a lawyer to discuss options and filing a complaint against the hospital) and express more feelings of blame against the physician. At the same time, these participants rated the physician's communication skills and general impression more highly than those who were confronted with a defensive physician. Nevertheless, communicating openly about the medical incident does not affect trust in the physician and his competence, perceived incident severity and likelihood of changing physician and filing suit.

Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey

BACKGROUND

Language barrier, reduced self-advocacy, lower health literacy or biased care may hinder the diagnostic process. Data on how patients/families with limited English-language health literacy (LEHL) or disadvantaged socioeconomic position (dSEP) experience diagnostic errors are sparse.

METHOD

We compared patient-reported diagnostic errors, contributing factors and impacts between respondents with LEHL or dSEP and their counterparts in the 2017 Institute for Healthcare Improvement US population-based survey, using contingency analysis and multivariable logistic regression models for the analyses.

RESULTS

596 respondents reported a diagnostic error; among these, 381 reported LEHL or dSEP. After adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity and physical health, individuals with LEHL/dSEP were more likely than their counterparts to report unique contributing factors: "(No) qualified translator or healthcare provider that spoke (the patient's) language" (OR and 95% CI 4.4 (1.3 to 14.9)); "not understanding the follow-up plan" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)); "too many providers… but no clear leader" (1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)); "not able to keep follow-up appointments" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.2)); "not being able to pay for necessary medical care" (2.5 (1.4 to 4.4)) and "out-of-date or incorrect medical records" (2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)). Participants with LEHL/dSEP were more likely to report long-term emotional, financial and relational impacts, compared with their counterparts. Subgroup analysis (LEHL-only and dSEP-only participants) showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with LEHL or dSEP identified unique and actionable contributing factors to diagnostic errors. Interpreter access should be viewed as a diagnostic safety imperative, social determinants affecting care access/affordability should be routinely addressed as part of the diagnostic process and patients/families should be encouraged to access and update their medical records. The frequent and disproportionate long-term impacts from self-reported diagnostic error among LEHL/dSEP patients/families raises urgency for greater prevention and supportive efforts.

When Mistakes Multiply: How Inadequate Responses to Medical Mishaps Erode Trust in American Medicine

In this essay, we explore consequences of the systemic failure to track and to publicize the prevalence of patient-safety threats in American medicine. Tens of millions of Americans lose trust in medical care every year due to safety shortfalls. Because this loss of trust is long-lasting, the corrosive effects build up over time, yielding a collective maelstrom of mistrust among the American public. Yet no one seems to notice that patient safety is a root cause, because no one is counting. In addition to identifying the origins of this purblindness, we offer an alternative policy approach. This would call for government to transparently track safety threats through the systematic collection and reporting of patients' experiences. This alternative strategy offers real promise for stemming the erosion of trust that currently accompanies patient-safety shortfalls while staying consistent with Americans' preferences for a constrained government role with respect to medical care.

The Intra-Hospital Medical Dispute Burden and Capacities: A Nationwide Survey in Taiwan

(1) Background: Medical disputes have long been resolved via lawsuits. Alternative dispute resolutions have been promoted for their benefits and win-win results. This study aims to investigate Taiwanese hospital medical dispute capacities and burdens. (2) Methods: This study used 2015 nationwide questionnaire data. The number and value of medical disputes that occurred in 2014 was examined to evaluate hospitals' capabilities. Poisson regressions were used to determine the impact of coping abilities on the incidence of disputes and the associated compensation. (3) Results: The response rate of the questionnaire was 90%. Hospital features associated with higher medical disputes incidence included those of a scale ≤ 100 or 200-499 and having a dispute-inform process of over 4 h. In contrast, hospitals whose compensation fund was solely based on medical liability insurance reported less medical dispute incidence. The features associated with higher compensation were lack of continuing training and having a dispute-inform process over 4 h. In contrast, hospitals with standard operating procedures for in-hospital mediation and solicitude paid lower compensation. (4) Conclusions: Hospitals with quicker response times experienced fewer medical disputes and paid lower compensation. Dispute coping skills, other than reaction time, were more visible in compensation bargaining, but were not significantly correlated with incidence.

Factors related to liability for damages for adverse events occurring in long-term care facilities

Globally, residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) often experience adverse events (AEs) and corresponding lawsuits that result in suffering among the residents, their families, and the facilities. Hence, we conducted a study to clarify the factors related to the facilities' liabilities for damages for the AEs that occur at LTCFs in Japan. We analyzed 1,495 AE reports from LTCFs in one Japanese city. A binomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with liability for damages. The independent variables were classified as: residents, organizations, and social factors. In total, 14% of AEs resulted in the facility being liable for damages. The predictors of liability for damages were as follows: for the resident factors, the increased need for care had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 2.00 and care levels of 2-3; and AOR of 2.48 and care levels of 4-5. The types of injuries, such as bruises, wounds, and fractures, had AORs of 3.16, 2.62, and 2.50, respectively. Regarding the organization factors, the AE time, such as noon or evening, had an AOR of 1.85. If the AE occurred indoors, the AOR was 2.78, and if it occurred during staff care, the AOR was 2.11. For any follow-ups requiring consultation with a doctor, the AOR was 4.70, and for hospitalization, the AOR was 1.76. Regarding the type of LTCF providing medical care in addition to residential care, the AOR was 4.39. Regarding the social factors, the reports filed before 2017 had an AOR of 0.58. The results of the organization factors suggest that liability tends to arise in situations where the residents and their family expect high quality care. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen organizational factors in such situations to avoid AEs and the resulting liability for damages.

Malpractice Claims and Incident Reporting: Two Faces of the Same Coin?

Incident reporting is an important method to identify risks because learning from the reports is crucial in developing and implementing effective improvements. A medical malpractice claims analysis is an important tool in any case. Both incident reports and claims show cases of damage caused to patients, despite incident reporting comprising near misses, cases where no event occurred and no-harm events. We therefore compare the two worlds to assess whether they are similar or definitively different. From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2021, the claims database of Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS collected 843 claims. From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, the incident-reporting database collected 1919 events. In order to compare the two, we used IBNR calculation, usually adopted by the insurance industry to determine loss to a company and to evaluate the real number of adverse events that occurred. Indeed, the number of reported adverse events almost overlapped with the total number of events, which is indicative that incurred-but-not-reported events are practically irrelevant. The distribution of damage events reported as claims in the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 and related to incidents that occurred in the months of the same period, grouped by quarter, was then compared with the distribution of damage events reported as adverse events and sentinel events in the same period, grouped by quarter. The analysis of the claims database showed that the claims trend is slightly decreasing. However, the analysis of the reports database showed that, in the period 2020-2021, the reports trend was increasing. In our study, the comparison of the two, malpractice claims and incident reporting, documented many differences and weak areas of overlap. Nevertheless, this contribution represents the first attempt to compare the two and new studies focusing on single types of adverse events are, therefore, desirable.

Patient and Family Involvement in Serious Incident Investigations From the Perspectives of Key Stakeholders: A Review of the Qualitative Evidence

OBJECTIVES

Investigations of healthcare harm often overlook the valuable insights of patients and families. Our review aimed to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders when patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations.

METHODS

The authors searched three databases (Medline, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and Connected Papers software for qualitative studies in which patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations until no new articles were found.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven papers were eligible. The perspectives of patients and families, healthcare professionals, nonclinical staff, and legal staff were sought across acute, mental health and maternity settings. Most patients and families valued being involved; however, it was important that investigations were flexible and sensitive to both clinical and emotional aspects of care to avoid compounding harm. This included the following: early active listening with empathy for trauma, sincere and timely apology, fostering trust and transparency, making realistic timelines clear, and establishing effective nonadversarial communication. Most staff perceived that patient and family involvement could improve investigation quality, promote an open culture, and help ensure future safety. However, it was made difficult when multidisciplinary input was absent, workload and staff turnover were high, training and support needs were unmet, and fears surrounded litigation. Potential solutions included enhancing the clarity of roles and responsibilities, adequately training staff, and providing long and short-term support to stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides insights to ensure patient and family involvement in serious incident investigations considers both clinical and emotional aspects of care, is meaningful for all key stakeholders, and avoids compounding harm. However, significant gaps in the literature remain.

Patient Identification of Diagnostic Safety Blindspots and Participation in "Good Catches" Through Shared Visit Notes

Policy Points Patients and families can identify clinically relevant errors, including "blindspots"-safety hazards that are difficult for clinicians or organizations to see. Health information transparency, including patient access to electronic visit notes, now federally mandated in the US and the subject of policy debate worldwide, creates a new opportunity to engage patients in diagnostic safety. However, not all patients access notes. Patient identification of blindspots in their notes underscores the need to systematically and equitably engage willing patients in safety, promote patient "good catches," and establish routine systems for patient feedback to help avoid preventable diagnostic errors and delays.

CONTEXT

Policy shifts toward health information transparency provide a new opportunity for patients to contribute to diagnostic safety. We investigated whether sharing clinical notes with patients can support identification of "diagnostic safety blindspots"-potentially consequential breakdowns in the diagnostic process that may be difficult for clinical staff to observe.

METHOD

We used mixed methods to analyze patient-reported ambulatory documentation errors among 22,889 patients at three US health care centers who read ≥ 1 visit note(s). We identified blindspots by tailoring a previously established taxonomy. We used multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with blindspot identification.

FINDINGS

774 patients reported a total of 962 blindspots in 4 categories: (1) diagnostic misalignments (n = 421, 43.8%), including inaccurate symptoms or histories and failures or delay in diagnosis; (2) errors of omission (38.1%) including missed main concerns or next steps, and failure to listen to patients; (3) problems occurring outside visits (14.3%) such as tests, referrals, or appointment access; and (4) multiple low-level problems (3.7%) cascading into diagnostic breakdowns. Many patients acted on the blindspots they identified, resulting in "good catches" that may prevent potential negative consequences. Older, female, sicker, unemployed or disabled patients, or those who work in health care were more likely to identify a blindspot. Individuals reporting less formal education; those self-identifying as Black, Asian, other, or multiple races; and participants who deferred decision-making to providers were less likely to report a blindspot.

CONCLUSION

Patients who read notes have unique insight about potential errors in their medical records that could impact diagnostic reasoning but may not be known to clinicians-underscoring a critical role for patients in diagnostic safety and organizational learning. From a policy standpoint, organizations should encourage patient review of visit notes, build systems to track patient-reported blindspots, and promote equity in note access and blindspot reporting.

Reforming clinical negligence in England: lessons about patients' and providers' values from medical injury resolution in New Zealand and the United States of America

England's current review of clinical negligence and consideration of alternatives (such as no-fault compensation) should be welcomed. Valuing what patients and families want, and need, after harm in healthcare necessitates a system that enables their needs to be met. Medical negligence litigation is misaligned with patients' needs after harm events. By contrast, alternatives (such as no-fault and communication-and-resolution programmes) offer opportunities to place patients', families' and providers' values at the forefront of resolution efforts. This article offers empirical insights and lessons from two alternative systems for resolving medical injuries: New Zealand's (NZ's) administrative compensation scheme, and the US communication-and-resolution programmes (CRPs). The review in England presents an exciting opportunity to design a system for responding to medical injuries that harnesses the strengths of alternative approaches for resolving medical injuries, while also improving on the challenges with treatment injury in NZ.

Sociodemographic characteristics associated with a higher wish to complain about health care

OBJECTIVES

Previous research has shown that patients who are older, less educated, or have lower income are less likely to lodge complaints about health care. This variation may reflect less wish to complain or inequitable access to complaint channels or remedies. We aimed to investigate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and health users' wish to complain.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized case vignette survey among 6756 Danish men aged 45-70 years (30% response rate).

METHODS

Assuming they received the care in vignettes about prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen) testing, participants rated their wish to complain on a 5-point Likert scale. Information on sociodemographic characteristics was obtained through self-reports and municipality-level information from national registries.

RESULTS

Lower education was associated with an increased wish to complain (mean Likert difference 0.44 [95% CI 0.36-0.51]; P < .001). The wish to complain was higher among unemployed men (difference 0.16 [95% CI 0.04-0.28]; P < .011) and those with a chronic illness (difference 0.06 [95% CI 0.02-0.10]; P < .004). Given the same healthcare scenarios, there was no difference in wish to complain among health users who were retired, living rurally, or from lower income groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Health users who are less educated, lower income, elderly, or from rural or minority communities appear to be as likely, or more likely, to wish to complain about health care as others. Yet, younger, well-educated, and higher income citizens are overrepresented in actual complaint statistics. The finding suggests persisting inequalities in the suitability or accessibility of complaint processes for some groups of patients.

Medical Dispute Committees in the Netherlands: a qualitative study of patient expectations and experiences

BACKGROUND

Health care incidents, such as medical errors, cause tragedies all over the world. Recent legislation in the Netherlands has established medical dispute committees to provide for an appeals procedure offering an alternative to civil litigation and to meet the needs of clients. Dispute committees incorporate a hybrid procedure where one can file a complaint and a claim for damages resulting in a verdict without going to court. The procedure is at the crossroads of complaints law and civil litigation. This study seeks to analyze to what extent patients and family members' expectations and experiences with dispute committees match the goals of the new legislation.

METHODS

This qualitative, retrospective research includes in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with patients or family members who filed a complaint with a dispute committee in the Netherlands. The researchers conducted an inductive, thematic analysis of the qualitative data.

RESULTS

A total of 26 interviews were held with 30 patients and family members. The results showed that participants particularly felt the need to be heard and to make a positive impact on health care. Some wished to be financially compensated, for others money was the last thing on their mind. The results demonstrated the existence of unequal power relationships between participants and both the defendant and dispute committee members. Participants reported the added value of (legal) support and expressed the need for dialogue at the hearing. Participants sometimes experienced closure after the proceedings, but often did not feel heard or felt a lack of a practical outcome and a tangible improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that participants' expectations and experiences were not always met by the current set up of the dispute committee proceedings. Participants did not feel heard, while they did value the potential for monetary compensation. In addition, some participants did not experience an empowered position but rather a feeling of a power misbalance. The feeling of a power misbalance and not being heard might be explained by existing epistemic injustice, which is a concept that should be carefully considered in processes after health care incidents.

Adverse event reviews in healthcare: what matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family

OBJECTIVES

Explore what 'good' patient and family involvement in healthcare adverse event reviews may involve.

DESIGN

Data was collected using semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

SETTING

NHS Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

19 interviews were conducted with patients who had experienced an adverse event during the provision of their healthcare or their family member.

RESULTS

Four key themes were derived from these interviews: trauma, communication, learning and litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many advantages of actively involving patients and their families in adverse event reviews. An open, collaborative, person-centred approach which listens to, and involves, patients and their families is perceived to lead to improved outcomes. For the patient and their family, it can help with reconciliation following a traumatic event and help restore their faith in the healthcare system. For the health service, listening and involving people will likely enhance learning with subsequent improvements in healthcare provision with reduction in risk of similar events occurring for other patients. This study suggests eight recommendations for involving patients and families in adverse event reviews using the APICCTHS model (table 3) which includes an apology, person-centred inclusive communication, closing the loop, timeliness, putting patients and families at the heart of the review with appropriate support for staff involved. Communicating in a compassionate manner could also decrease litigation claims following an adverse event.

Humanizing harm: Using a restorative approach to heal and learn from adverse events

Background

Healthcare is not without risk. Despite two decades of policy focus and improvement efforts, the global incidence of harm remains stubbornly persistent, with estimates suggesting that 10% of hospital patients are affected by adverse events.

Methods

We explore how current investigative responses can compound the harm for all those affected—patients, families, health professionals and organizations—by neglecting to appreciate and respond to the human impacts. We suggest that the risk of compounded harm may be reduced when investigations respond to the need for healing alongside system learning, with the former having been consistently neglected.

Discussion

We argue that incident responses must be conceived within a relational as well as a regulatory framework, and that this—a restorative approach—has the potential to radically shift the focus, conduct and outcomes of investigative processes.

Conclusion

The identification of the preconditions and mechanisms that enable the success of restorative approaches in global health systems and legal contexts is required if their demonstrated potential is to be realized on a larger scale. The policy must be co‐created by all those who will be affected by reforms and be guided by restorative principles.

Patient or Public Contribution

This viewpoint represents an international collaboration between a clinician academic, safety scientist and harmed patient and family members. The paper incorporates key findings and definitions from New Zealand's restorative response to surgical mesh harm, which was co‐designed with patient advocates, academics and clinicians.

Patients at the centre after a health care incident: A scoping review of hospital strategies targeting communication and nonmaterial restoration

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide an overview of the strategies adopted by hospitals that target effective communication and nonmaterial restoration (i.e., without a financial or material focus) after health care incidents, and to formulate elements in hospital strategies that patients consider essential by analysing how patients have evaluated these strategies.

BACKGROUND

In the aftermath of a health care incident, hospitals are tasked with responding to the patients' material and nonmaterial needs, mainly restoration and communication. Currently, an overview of these strategies is lacking. In particular, a gap exists concerning how patients evaluate these strategies.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND INCLUSION CRITERIA

To identify studies in this scoping review, and following the methodological framework set out by Arksey and O'Malley, seven subject-relevant electronic databases were used (PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO and Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection). Reference lists of included studies were also checked for relevant studies. Studies were included if published in English, after 2000 and as peer-reviewed articles.

MAIN RESULTS AND SYNTHESIS

The search yielded 13,989 hits. The review has a final inclusion of 16 studies. The inclusion led to an analysis of five different hospital strategies: open disclosure processes, communication-and-resolution programmes, complaints procedures, patients-as-partners in learning from health care incidents and subsequent disclosure, and mediation. The analysis showed three main domains that patients considered essential: interpersonal communication, organisation around disclosure and support and desired outcomes.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

This scoping review specifically takes the patient perspective in its methodological design and analysis. Studies were included if they contained an evaluation by patients, and the included studies were analysed on the essential elements for patients.

Medical Error Disclosure: Developing Evidence-Based Guidelines for Chinese Hospitals

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate Chinese individuals' expectations regarding the disclosure of errors that vary in level of harm severity and to develop guidelines for error disclosure.

METHODS

A total of 947 valid responses were collected from a questionnaire survey in 2019, and 220 respondents or their family members had experienced medical errors. The respondents were required to indicate their preferences regarding the disclosure of errors that entail moderate and severe harm. Based on their responses and interviews conducted with several patient safety managers, guidelines for medical error disclosure were developed.

RESULTS

Similar preferences were reported for the disclosure of errors that entail moderate and severe harm. They expected a formal disclosure. Furthermore, they wished to be informed about the error through face-to-face communication in a meeting room immediately after error detection. Moreover, they wanted to be provided with all details about the incident. The health care provider who was involved in the incident, the leader of his/her department/team, the patient safety manager, and top management member were expected to attend the meeting. However, there was a significant difference in who was expected to disclose errors that entail moderate (i.e., the health care provider involved in the incident) and severe (i.e., the leader, top management member) harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical error disclosure is not commonly practiced in Chinese hospitals. Therefore, the proposed guidelines could be the first step toward disclosure supporting. In addition, the present findings underscore the importance of cultural sensitivity and error severity in international error disclosure research and practice.

Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Patients and families are important contributors to the diagnostic team, but their perspectives are not reflected in current diagnostic measures. Patients/families can identify some breakdowns in the diagnostic process beyond the clinician's view. We aimed to develop a framework with patients/families to help organisations identify and categorise patient-reported diagnostic process-related breakdowns (PRDBs) to inform organisational learning.

METHOD

A multi-stakeholder advisory group including patients, families, clinicians, and experts in diagnostic error, patient engagement and safety, and user-centred design, co-developed a framework for PRDBs in ambulatory care. We tested the framework using standard qualitative analysis methods with two physicians and one patient coder, analysing 2165 patient-reported ambulatory errors in two large surveys representing 25 425 US respondents. We tested intercoder reliability of breakdown categorisation using the Gwet's AC1 and Cohen's kappa statistic. We considered agreement coefficients 0.61-0.8=good agreement and 0.81-1.00=excellent agreement.

RESULTS

The framework describes 7 patient-reported breakdown categories (with 40 subcategories), 19 patient-identified contributing factors and 11 potential patient-reported impacts. Patients identified breakdowns in each step of the diagnostic process, including missing or inaccurate main concerns and symptoms; missing/outdated test results; and communication breakdowns such as not feeling heard or misalignment between patient and provider about symptoms, events, or their significance. The frequency of PRDBs was 6.4% in one dataset and 6.9% in the other. Intercoder reliability showed good-to-excellent reliability in each dataset: AC1 0.89 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.90) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); kappa 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, to 0.66) to 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning.

Communication about medical errors

Communication about medical errors with patients and families demonstrates respect, compassion, and commitment by providing information, acknowledging harm, and maintaining trust through a process of dialogue that involves multiple conversations. This communication requires knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow healthcare professionals to discuss facts transparently, take responsibility for what happened, and express regret and (as appropriate) apologize; these abilities also allow professionals to describe what will happen next for the patient and explain what will be done to prevent the error from happening to others in the future. Communication about medical errors also encompasses two other contexts: reporting information about errors to healthcare organizations through data collection systems designed to improve patient safety, and discussing errors with fellow healthcare professionals to promote professional learning and receive emotional support. Communication about errors in these three contexts depends on healthcare professionals who are honest, reflective, compassionate, courageous, accountable, reassuring, and willing to acknowledge and engage their own feelings of sadness, fear, and guilt. Healthcare organizations should promote a systems approach to patient safety and cultivate a culture of transparency and learning in which healthcare professionals are supported as they cope with the distress they experience after an error. Communication about errors should be incorporated into all healthcare practice settings (medical, surgical, in-patient, out-patient), and can be taught to medical students and residents using didactic, role-playing, or simulation methodologies.

Assessing Patients' Experiences with Medical Injury Reconciliation Processes: Item Generation for a Novel Survey Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Many health care organizations want to improve their responses to patients who suffer medical injuries. Their ability to understand how well they meet patients' needs is limited by the lack of suitable instruments for assessing injured patients' experiences.

METHODS

This study aimed to generate items for a patient experience questionnaire that medical facilities can use to assess how well resolution met patients' needs. The Medical Injury Reconciliation Experiences Survey (MIRES) was based on findings from previous studies of New Zealand and American patients' experiences of non-litigation resolution of medical injuries. The researchers performed a content analysis of 24 transcripts from a stratified random sample of 92 interviews from the prior studies. Themes were extracted to develop a draft questionnaire, which was revised following feedback from experts. Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 24 New Zealand and American injured patients.

RESULTS

There were 40 items in the following domains: perceptions of communications with health care providers after the injury (15 items), perceptions of remedial gestures (11 items), indicia of the patient's overall satisfaction with the reconciliation process (4 items), the nature and impacts of the injury (5 items), and patients' characteristics (5 items). Participants' feedback about the questionnaire was predominantly positive. Their suggestions led to 37 revisions.

CONCLUSION

The MIRES was comprehensible and acceptable to this group of post-injury patients. While further testing is desirable, the MIRES offers promise as a practicable approach that health care organizations can use to assess how well their reconciliation processes met patients' needs.

Informatics opportunities to involve patients in hospital safety: a conceptual model

Objective

Inpatients could play an important role in identifying, preventing, and reporting problems in the quality and safety of their care. To support them effectively in that role, informatics solutions must align with their experiences. Thus, we set out to understand how inpatients experience undesirable events (UEs) and to surface opportunities for those informatics solutions.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a survey with 242 patients and caregivers during their hospital stay, asking open-ended questions about their experiences with UEs. Based on our qualitative analysis, we developed a conceptual model representing their experiences and identified informatics opportunities to support patients.

Results

Our 4-stage conceptual model illustrates inpatient experiences, from when they first encounter UEs, when they could intervene, when harms emerge, what types of harms they experience, and what they do in response to harms.

Discussion

Existing informatics solutions address the first stage of inpatients’ experiences by increasing their awareness of potential UEs. However, future researchers can explore new opportunities to fill gaps in support that patients experience in subsequent stages, especially at critical decision points such as intervening in UEs and responding to harms that occur.

Conclusions

Our conceptual model reveals the complex inpatient experiences with UEs, and opportunities for new informatics solutions to support them at all stages of their experience. Investigating these new opportunities could promote inpatients’ participation and engagement in the quality and safety of their care, help healthcare systems learn from inpatients’ experience, and reduce these harmful events.

Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys

Background

Improving openness—including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes—is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which examined failings of openness at one English hospital. We examine whether staff and patients’ views on openness, and experiences of giving voice to concerns, have changed since the report’s publication for better or worse.

Methods

Organisational-level data was collated for all trusts from the NHS National Staff Survey (2007–2017), NHS Acute Inpatient Survey (2004–2016) and NHS Community Mental Health Service User Survey (2007–2017). Survey items related to openness were identified and longitudinal statistical analysis conducted (piecewise growth curve and interrupted latent growth curve analysis) to determine whether there was evidence of a shift in the rate or direction of change following publication of the Francis report.

Results

For some variables there was a discernible change in trajectory after the publication of the Francis report. Staff survey variables continued to rise after 2013, with a statistically significant increase in rate for “fairness and effectiveness of incident reporting procedures” (from + 0.02 to + 0.06 per year; p < .001). For the patient surveys, the picture was more mixed: patient views about information provided by accident and emergency staff rose from a 0.3% increase per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01), and inpatients being involved in decision making increased from a 0.4% rise per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01); however, there were not rises in the other questions. Mental health patients reported a decrease after 2013 in being listened to (decreasing at a rate of 1.9% per year, p < .001).

Conclusions

Data suggest that the Francis inquiry may have had a positive impact on staff and acute inpatients’ perceptions and experiences of openness in the NHS. However such improvements have not transpired in mental health. How best to create an environment in which patients can discuss their care and raise concerns openly in mental health settings may require further consideration.

Communicating with patients about diagnostic errors in breast cancer care: Providers' attitudes, experiences, and advice

OBJECTIVE

To gain understanding of breast cancer care providers' attitudes regarding communicating with patients about diagnostic errors, to inform interventions to improve patient- provider discussions.

METHODS

Focus groups were held in three U.S. states involving 41 breast cancer care providers from a variety of specialties. Discussions focused on providers' experiences with potential errors in breast cancer diagnosis, communication with patients following three hypothetical diagnostic vignettes, and suggestions for how and why diagnostic errors in breast cancer care should be communicated. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Providers were more willing to inform breast cancer patients of a diagnostic error when they felt it would be helpful, when they felt responsible for the error, when they were less concerned about litigation, and when the patient asked directly.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer care providers experience several challenges when considering whether to inform a patient about diagnostic errors. A better understanding of patients' preferences for open communication, combined with customized tools and training, could increase clinicians' comfort with these difficult discussions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers gave suggestions to facilitate discussions about diagnostic errors when these events occur, including themes of education, honesty, and optimism.

Association of open communication and the emotional and behavioural impact of medical error on patients and families: state-wide cross-sectional survey

Background

How openly healthcare providers communicate after a medical error may influence long-term impacts. We sought to understand whether greater open communication is associated with fewer persisting emotional impacts, healthcare avoidance and loss of trust.

Methods

Cross-sectional 2018 recontact survey assessing experience with medical error in a 2017 random digit dial survey of Massachusetts residents. Two hundred and fifty-three respondents self-reported medical error. Respondents were similar to non-respondents in sociodemographics confirming minimal response bias. Time since error was categorised as <1, 1–2 or 3–6 years before interview. Open communication was measured with six questions assessing different communication elements. Persistent impacts included emotional (eg, sadness, anger), healthcare avoidance (specific providers or all medical care) and loss of trust in healthcare. Logistic regressions examined the association between open communication and long-term impacts.

Results

Of respondents self-reporting a medical error 3–6 years ago, 51% reported at least one current emotional impact; 57% reported avoiding doctor/facilities involved in error; 67% reported loss of trust. Open communication varied: 34% reported no communication and 24% reported ≥5 elements. Controlling for error severity, respondents reporting the most open communication had significantly lower odds of persisting sadness (OR=0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60, p=0.006), depression (OR=0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.77, p=0.022) or feeling abandoned/betrayed (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48, p=0.004) compared with respondents reporting no communication. Open communication significantly predicted less doctor/facility avoidance, but was not associated with medical care avoidance or healthcare trust.

Conclusions

Negative emotional impacts from medical error can persist for years. Open communication is associated with reduced emotional impacts and decreased avoidance of doctors/facilities involved in the error. Communication and resolution programmes could facilitate transparent conversations and reduce some of the negative impacts of medical error.

Third Things as Inspiration and Artifact: A Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Approach to Understand Patient and Family Emotions after Harmful Events

Patient and family emotional harm after medical errors may be profound. At an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conference to establish a research agenda on this topic, the authors used visual images as a gateway to personal reflections among diverse stakeholders. Themes identified included chaos and turmoil, profound isolation, organizational denial, moral injury and betrayal, negative effects on families and communities, importance of relational skills, and healing effects of human connection. The exercise invited storytelling, enabled psychological safety, and fostered further collaborative discussion. The authors discuss implications for quality/safety, educational innovation, and qualitative research.

New Zealand District Health Boards' Open Disclosure Policies: A Qualitative Review

BACKGROUND

New Zealand health and disability providers are expected to have local open disclosure policies in place, however, empirical analysis of these policies has not been undertaken.

AIM

This study aims to (1) examine the scope and content of open disclosure policies in New Zealand (2) compare open disclosure policies in New Zealand, and (3) provide baseline results for future research.

METHODS

Open disclosure policies were requested from all twenty New Zealand District Health Boards in June 2016. A total of twenty-one policies were received, with nineteen policies included in the review. The data were analysed using conventional content analysis. Areas of identified guidance were categorised categorized under the headings: 1) identification of an adverse event, 2) actions before disclosure, 3) disclosure of harm, and 4) actions after disclosure.

RESULTS

A total of forty-six distinct areas of guidance could be categorized under the different phases of the open disclosure life-cycle.

CONCLUSION

This review has identified significant unwarranted heterogeneity and important gaps in open disclosure documents in New Zealand which urgently needs to be addressed. Open disclosure policies which are both flexible and specific should enhance the likelihood that injured patients' needs will be met.

A Multi-Stakeholder Consensus-Driven Research Agenda for Better Understanding and Supporting the Emotional Impact of Harmful Events on Patients and Families

BACKGROUND

The nature and consequences of patient and family emotional harm stemming from preventable medical error, such as losing a loved one or surviving serious medical injury, is poorly understood. Patients and families, clinicians, social scientists, lawyers, and foundation/policy leaders were brought together to establish research priorities for this issue.

METHODS

A one-day conference of diverse stakeholder groups to establish a consensus-driven research agenda focused on (1) priorities for research on the short-term and long-term emotional impact of harmful events on patients and families, (2) barriers and enablers to conducting such research, and (3) actionable steps toward better supporting harmed patients and families now.

RESULTS

Stakeholders discussed patient and family experiences after serious harmful events, including profound isolation, psychological distress, damaging aspects of medical culture, health care aversion, and negative effects on communities. Stakeholder groups reached consensus, defining four research priorities: (1) Establish conceptual framework and patient-centered taxonomy of harm and healing; (2) Describe epidemiology of emotional harm; (3) Determine how to make emotional harm and long-term impacts visible to health care organizations and society at large; and (4) Develop and implement best practices for emotional support of patients and families. The group also created a strategy for overcoming research barriers and actionable "Do Now" approaches to improve the patient and family experience while research is ongoing.

CONCLUSION

Emotional and other long-term impacts of harmful events can have profound consequences for patients and families. Stakeholders designed a path forward to inform approaches that better support harmed patients and families, with both immediately actionable and longer-term research strategies.