Disclosure of adverse events and errors in surgical care: challenges and strategies for improvement

A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data

Patient safety is a key quality issue for health systems. Healthcare acquired adverse events (AEs) compromise safety and quality; therefore, their reporting and monitoring is a patient safety priority. Although administrative datasets are potentially efficient tools for monitoring rates of AEs, concerns remain over the accuracy of their data. Chart review validation studies are required to explore the potential of administrative data to inform research and health policy. This review aims to present an overview of the methodological approaches and strategies used to validate rates of AEs in administrative data through chart review. This review was conducted in line with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping reviews. Through database searches, 1054 sources were identified, imported into Covidence, and screened against the inclusion criteria. Articles that validated rates of AEs in administrative data through chart review were included. Data were extracted, exported to Microsoft Excel, arranged into a charting table, and presented in a tabular and descriptive format. Fifty-six studies were included. Most sources reported on surgical AEs; however, other medical specialties were also explored. Chart reviews were used in all studies; however, few agreed on terminology for the study design. Various methodological approaches and sampling strategies were used. Some studies used the Global Trigger Tool, a two-stage chart review method, whilst others used alternative single-, two-stage, or unclear approaches. The sources used samples of flagged charts (n = 24), flagged and random charts (n = 11), and random charts (n = 21). Most studies reported poor or moderate accuracy of AE rates. Some studies reported good accuracy of AE recording which highlights the potential of using administrative data for research purposes. This review highlights the potential for administrative data to provide information on AE rates and improve patient safety and healthcare quality. Nonetheless, further work is warranted to ensure that administrative data are accurate. The variation of methodological approaches taken, and sampling techniques used demonstrate a lack of consensus on best practice; therefore, further clarity and consensus are necessary to develop a more systematic approach to chart reviewing.

Influence of external assessment on quality and safety in surgery: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Transparency about the occurrence of adverse events has been a decades-long governmental priority, defining external feedback to healthcare providers as a key measure to improve the services and reduce the number of adverse events. This study aimed to explore surgeons' experiences of assessment by external bodies, with a focus on its impact on transparency, reporting and learning from serious adverse events. External bodies were defined as external inspection, police internal investigation, systems of patient injury compensation and media.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative study design, 15 surgeons were recruited from four Norwegian university hospitals and examined with individual semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed by deductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes were identified, related to influence of external inspection, police investigation, patient injury compensation and media publicity, (re)presented by three categories: (1) sense of criminalisation and reinforcement of guilt, being treated as suspects, (2) lack of knowledge and competence among external bodies causing and reinforcing a sense of clashing cultures between the 'medical and the outside world' with minor influence on quality improvement and (3) involving external bodies could stimulate awareness about internal issues of quality and safety, depending on relevant competence, knowledge and communication skills.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study found that external assessment might generate criminalisation and scapegoating, reinforcing the sense of having medical perspectives on one hand and external regulatory perspectives on the other, which might hinder efforts to improve quality and safety. External bodies could, however, inspire useful adjustment of internal routines and procedures. The study implies that the variety and interconnections between external bodies may expose the surgeons to challenging pressure. Further studies are required to investigate these challenges to quality and safety in surgery.

Surgical residents as "second victims" following exposure to medical errors in a tertiary health training facility in Nigeria: a phenomenology study

INTRODUCTION

The "second victim" phenomenon refers to the distress and other negative consequences that physicians experience when they commit medical error. There has been increasing awareness about this phenomenon and efforts are being made to address it. However, there is dearth of information about it in developing countries. This study explored the experiences of surgical resident doctors of the University College Hospital in Ibadan, Nigeria about the "second victim" phenomenon and the support they had following medical errors.

METHODS

This is a phenomenology study in which qualitative data were obtained from interviews with 31 resident doctors across 10 surgical units/departments. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were coded inductively. Data were analyzed using content analysis method. Themes and subthemes were generated using axial coding. The themes were then integrated using selective coding.

RESULTS

There were 31 participants and 10(32.3%) were females. All had witnessed other physicians encountering medical errors while 28(90.3%) had been directly involved in medical errors. Most of the errors were at the inter-operative stage. Prolonged work hours with inadequate sleep were identified as major causes of most medical errors. The feelings following medical errors were all negative and was described as 'stressful'. Most of the residents got support from their colleagues, mostly contemporaries following medical errors, and many viewed medical errors as a learning point to improve their practice. However, there was a general belief that the systemic support following medical errors was inadequate.

CONCLUSION

The "second victim" phenomenon was common among the study group with consequent negative effects. Normalizing discussions about medical errors, reduction of work hours and meticulous intraoperative guidance may reduce medical errors and its consequences on the surgical residents. Steps should be taken within the system to address this issue effectively.

Learning from experience: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives on reporting and dealing with serious adverse events

INTRODUCTION

In surgery, serious adverse events have effects on the patient journey, the patient outcome and may constitute a burden to the surgeon involved. This study aims to investigate facilitators and barriers to transparency around, reporting of and learning from serious adverse events among surgeons.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative study design, we recruited 15 surgeons (4 females and 11 males) with 4 different surgical subspecialties from four Norwegian university hospitals. The participants underwent individual semistructured interviews and data were analysed according to principles of inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We identified four overarching themes. All surgeons reported having experienced serious adverse events, describing these as part of 'the nature of surgery'. Most surgeons reported that established strategies failed to combine facilitation of learning with taking care of the involved surgeons. Transparency about serious adverse events was by some felt as an extra burden, fearing that openness on technical-related errors could affect their future career negatively. Positive implications of transparency were linked with factors such as minimising the surgeon's feeling of personal burden with positive impact on individual and collective learning. A lack of facilitation of individual and structural transparency factors could entail 'collateral damage'. Our participants suggested that both the younger generation of surgeons in general, and the increasing number of women in surgical professions, might contribute to 'maturing' the culture of transparency.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that transparency associated with serious adverse events is hampered by concerns at both personal and professional levels among surgeons. These results emphasise the importance of improved systemic learning and the need for structural changes; it is crucial to increase the focus on education and training curriculums and offer advice on coping strategies and establish arenas for safe discussions after serious adverse events.

Disclosing Adverse Events in Clinical Practice: The Delicate Act of Being Open

Practicing a "safe" disclosure of adverse events remains challenging for healthcare professionals. In addition, knowledge on how to deliver a disclosure is still limited. This review focuses on how disclosure communication may be practiced based on the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals. Empirical studies conducted between September 2008 and October 2019 were included from the databases PubMed, Web of Science and Psychinfo. After full text analysis and quality appraisal this scoping review included a total of 23 studies out of 2537 studies. As a first step, the needs of patients and the challenges of healthcare professionals with the practice of providing an effective disclosure were extracted from the empirical literature. Based on these findings, the review demonstrates that specific disclosure communication strategies on the level of interpersonal skills, organization, and supportive factors may facilitate healthcare professionals to provide optimal disclosure of adverse events. These may be relevant to provide patients with a tailored approach that accompanies their preferences for information and recognition. In conclusion, healthcare professionals may need training in interpersonal (verbal and nonverbal) communication skills. Furthermore, it is important to develop an open (organizational) culture that supports the communication of adverse events and disclosure as a standard practice.

Standardized Postoperative Adverse Event Data Collection to Document, Inform, and Improve Patient Care

There is great potential for standardized postoperative adverse events data collection to document, inform, audit, and feedback, all to optimize patient care. Adverse events, defined as any deviation from expected recovery from surgery, have harmful implications for patients, their families, and clinicians. Postoperative adverse events occur frequently in thoracic surgery, predominately due to the high-stakes (ie, high potential for cure) and high-risk (ie, vital physiology and anatomy and preexisting disease) nature of the surgery. As discussed, engaging surgeons in audit and feedback practices informed by standardized data collection would generate consensus recommendations to reduce adverse events and improve patient outcomes.

Why an Open Disclosure Procedure Is and Is not Followed After an Avoidable Adverse Event

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze the relationships between factors that contribute to healthcare professionals informing and apologizing to a patient after an avoidable adverse event (AAE).

METHODS

A secondary study based on the analysis of data collected in a cross-sectional study conducted in 2014 in Spain was performed. Health professionals from hospitals and primary care completed an online survey.

RESULTS

The responses from 1087 front-line healthcare professionals were analyzed. The willingness of the professionals to fully disclose an AAE was greater among those who were backed by their institution (odds ratio [OR] = 72.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.5-140.3) and who had experience with that type of communication (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.3-4.5). An apology for the patient was more likely when there was institutional support (OR = 31.3, 95% CI = 14.4-68.2), the professional was not aware of lawsuits (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.2-6.1), and attributed most AAE to human error (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.1-4.2). The fear of lawsuits was determined by the lack of support from the center in disclosing AAE (OR = 5.5, 95% CI = 2.8-10.6) and the belief that being open would result in negative consequences (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.1-3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The culture of safety, the experience of blame, and the expectations about the outcome from communicating an AAE to patients affect the frequency of open disclosure. Nurses are more willing than physicians to participate in open disclosure. Health care organizations must act to establish a framework of legal certainty for professionals.

Learning From Morbidity and Mortality Conferences: Focus and Sustainability of Lessons for Patient Care

OBJECTIVE

It remains unclear to what extent the morbidity and mortality conference (M&M) meets the objective of improving quality and safety of patient care. It has been suggested that M&M may be too focused on individual performance, hampering system-level improvement. The aim of this study was to assess focus and sustainability of lessons for patient care that were derived from M&M.

METHODS

This is an observational study of routinely collected data on evaluated complications and identified lessons at surgical M&M for 8 years, assessing type and recurrence of lessons and cases from which these were drawn. Semistructured interviews with clinicians were qualitatively analyzed to explore factors contributing to lesson focus and recurrence.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighteen lessons were drawn from 10,883 evaluated complications, primarily for those that were more severe, related to surgical or other treatment, and occurring in nonemergent, lower risk cases (all P < 0.001). Most lessons targeted intraoperative (43%) rather than preoperative or postoperative care as well as specifically technical (87%) and individual-level issues (74%). There were 43 recurring lessons (14%), mostly about postoperative care (47%) and medication management (50%). Interviewed clinicians attributed the intraoperative, technical focus primarily to greater appeal and control but identified an array of factors contributing to lesson recurrence, such as typical staff turnover in teaching hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided empirical evidence that learning at M&M has a tendency to focus on intraoperative, technical performance, with challenges to sustain lessons for more system-level issues. Morbidity and mortality conference formats need to anticipate these tendencies to ensure a wide focus for learning with lasting and wide impact.

Is the perceived impact of disciplinary procedures on medical doctors' professional practice associated with working in an open culture and feeling supported? A questionnaire among medical doctors in the Netherlands who have been disciplined

INTRODUCTION

Disciplinary procedures can have a negative impact on the professional functioning of medical doctors. In this questionnaire study, doctors' experience with open culture and support during a disciplinary procedure is studied to determine whether open culture and support are associated with perceived changes in the professional practice of doctors.

METHODS

All doctors who received a warning or a reprimand from the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Board between July 2012 and August 2016 were invited to fill in a 60-item questionnaire concerning open culture, perceived support during the disciplinary procedure and the impact of the procedure on professional functioning as reported by doctors themselves. The response rate was 43% (n=294).

RESULTS

A majority of doctors perceive their work environment as a safe environment in which to talk about and report incidents (71.2% agreed). Respondents felt supported by a lawyer or legal representative and colleagues (92.8% and 89.2%, respectively). The disciplinary procedure had effects on professional practice. Legal support and support from a professional confidant and a professional association were associated with fewer perceived changes to professional practice.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that doctors who had been disciplined perceive their working environment as open. Doctors felt supported by lawyers and/or legal representatives and colleagues. Legal support was associated with less of a perceived impact on doctors' professional practice.

Taking Morbidity and Mortality Conferences to a Next Level: The Resilience Engineering Concept

OBJECTIVE

To explore possibilities to improve morbidity and mortality conferences using advancing insights in safety science.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Mortality and Morbidity conferences (M&M) are the golden practice for case-based learning. While learning from complications is useful, M&M does not meet expectations for system-wide improvement. Resilience engineering principles may be used to improve M&M.

METHODS

After a review of the shortcomings of traditional M&M, resilience engineering principles are explored as a new way to evaluate performance. This led to the development of a new M&M format that also reviews successful outcomes, rather than only complications. This "quality assessment meeting" (QAM) is presented and the first experiences are evaluated using local observations and a survey.

RESULTS

During the QAM teams evaluate all discharged patients, addressing team resilience in terms of surgeons' ability to respond to irregularities and to monitor and learn from experiences. The meeting was feasible to implement and well received by the surgical team. Observations reveal that reflection on both complicated and uncomplicated cases strengthened team morale but also triggered reflection on the entire clinical course. The QAM serves as a tool to identify how adapting behavior led to success despite challenging conditions, so that this resilient performance can be supported.

CONCLUSIONS

The resilience engineering concept can be used to adjust M&M, in which learning is focused not only on complications but also on how successful outcomes were achieved despite ever-present challenges. This reveals the actual ratio between successful and unsuccessful outcomes, allowing to learn from both to reinforce safety-enhancing behavior.

Review of disclosure and apology literature: Gaps and needs

A review of the literature related to the disclosure movement was conducted to find gaps and needs while identifying areas where needs are being met. There are several articles that address claims and other economic factors. Moreover, there are many papers that define barriers to disclosure with suggested workarounds. There is also a wealth of training content that teaches how to say "sorry." However, gaps and needs were identified. The "gap list" was developed with a focus on concepts that are novel or not mentioned in the literature as well as issues in the disclosure movement that would benefit from greater attention: (1) lack of research and disclosure training content for health care professionals beyond acute care; (2) messaging and disclosure programs, including the meaning of "apology"; (3) insufficient integration between disclosure programs and second victim support programs; (4) confidentiality clauses; (5) the National Practitioner Data Bank and state licensure boards being viewed as an impediment to disclosure; (6) understanding awareness of the disclosure movement by consumers, personal injury bar, and payors; (7) measuring what medical and nursing schools are teaching about disclosure; and (8) encouraging states to pass apology laws that support the development of disclosure programs.

Adverse Event Disclosure Training for Nursing Students: Peer Role-Play and Simulated Patients

Background Simulation has proven valuable in nursing communication training, but there are limited studies comparing the effectiveness of different training methods, especially in the area of adverse event disclosure (AED) training. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of two training methods, peer role-play (PRP) and simulated patients (SP) on the self-efficacy and performance of nursing students in AED in a simulated environment. Methods Forty-four nursing students participated. Students' self-efficacy toward AED was assessed using the pre/post-test method. Also, students' performance was evaluated after the simulation encounter. Results It showed a significant difference in self-efficacy between the groups. However, no significant difference emerged between the groups in performance. Conclusion This study provides a basis for comparison of these two methods in patient communication training. Educators should consider their resources and expected learning outcomes in designing the emotionally draining adverse event disclosure training.

Evaluating the expected effects of disclosure of patient safety incidents using hypothetical cases in Korea

To introduce disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI) into a specific country, evidence of the effectiveness of DPSI is essential. Since such a disclosure policy has not been adopted in South Korea, hypothetical cases can be used to measure the effectiveness of DPSI. We evaluated the effectiveness of DPSI using hypothetical cases in a survey with a sample of the Korean general public. We used 8 hypothetical cases reflecting 3 conditions: the clarity of medical errors, the severity of harm, and conducting DPSI. Face-to-face interviews with 700 people using structured questionnaires were conducted. Participants were asked to read each hypothetical case and give remarks on the following: their judgment of a situation as a medical error and of the requirement for an apology, the willingness to revisit or recommend physicians, the intention to file a medical lawsuit and commence criminal proceedings against physicians, the level of trust in physicians, and the expected amount of compensation. The results indicated favorable findings in support of DPSI; DPSI reduced the likelihood of perceiving a situation as a medical error, promoted willingness to revisit and recommend physicians, and discouraged the intention to file a medical lawsuit and take commence criminal proceedings against physicians. Furthermore, DPSI increased patients’ trust scores in physicians and reduced the expected amount of compensation. The general public had positive attitudes towards DPSI in South Korea. This result provides empirical evidence for reducing the psychological burden that the introduction of DPSI may have on health professionals.

The intention to disclose medical errors among doctors in a referral hospital in North Malaysia

Background

In this study, medical errors are defined as unintentional patient harm caused by a doctor’s mistake. This topic, due to limited research, is poorly understood in Malaysia. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of doctors intending to disclose medical errors, and their attitudes/perception pertaining to medical errors.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary public hospital from July- December 2015 among 276 randomly selected doctors. Data was collected using a standardized and validated self-administered questionnaire intending to measure disclosure and attitudes/perceptions. The scale had four vignettes in total two medical and two surgical. Each vignette consisted of five questions and each question measured the disclosure. Disclosure was categorised as “No Disclosure”, “Partial Disclosure” or “Full Disclosure”. Data was keyed in and analysed using STATA v 13.0.

Results

Only 10.1% (n = 28) intended to disclose medical errors. Most respondents felt that they possessed an attitude/perception of adequately disclosing errors to patients. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) when comparing the intention of disclosure with perceived disclosures. Most respondents were in common agreement that disclosing an error would make them less likely to get sued, that minor errors should be reported and that they experienced relief from disclosing errors.

Conclusion

Most doctors in this study would not disclose medical errors although they perceived that the errors were serious and felt responsible for it. Poor disclosure could be due the fear of litigations and improper mechanisms/procedures available for disclosure.

Communication between the obese patient and bariatric surgeon

Communication between the bariatric surgeon and the obese patient is very important as it influences the expectations of patients with regard to surgery, aim of the surgery and the understanding of the mechanisms of failure of surgery. Furthermore, the incidence of certain psychopathology in these patients makes it necessary for the surgeon to have the ability to communicate to the patient the need for motivation and the maintenance of healthy life habits. Although the topic is subjective, in this article we review several useful recommendations to optimize communication before and after surgery. Finally, we emphasize the need to create workshops to train the bariatric surgeon in these issues that we consider so important.