Patient Safety: Disclosure of Medical Errors and Risk Mitigation

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.

The medicolegal impact of misplaced pedicle and lateral mass screws on spine surgery in the United States

Spine surgery has been disproportionately impacted by medical liability and malpractice litigation, with the majority of claims and payouts related to procedural error. One common area for the potential avoidance of malpractice claims and subsequent payouts involves misplaced pedicle and/or lateral mass instrumentation. However, the medicolegal impact of misplaced screws on spine surgery has not been directly reported in the literature. The authors of the current study aimed to describe this impact in the United States, as well as to suggest a potential method for mitigating the problem.This retrospective analysis of 68 closed medicolegal cases related to misplaced screws in spine surgery showed that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons were equally named as the defendant (n = 32 and 31, respectively), and cases were most commonly due to misplaced lumbar pedicle screws (n = 41, 60.3%). Litigation resulted in average payouts of $1,204,422 ± $753,832 between 1995 and 2019, when adjusted for inflation. The median time to case closure was 56.3 (35.2-67.2) months when ruled in favor of the plaintiff (i.e., patient) compared to 61.5 (51.4-77.2) months for defendant (surgeon) verdicts (p = 0.117).

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database 2019 Annual Report

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Database was established in 1989 as an initiative for quality improvement and patient safety for cardiothoracic surgery. The STS National Database has 4 components, each focusing on a distinct discipline-Adult Cardiac Surgery, General Thoracic Surgery, Congenital Heart Surgery, and mechanical circulatory support with the STS Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Intermacs)/Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Pedimacs) Database. In December 2015, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery began publishing a monthly series of scholarly articles on outcomes analysis, quality improvement, and patient safety. This article provides the fourth annual summary of the status of the STS National Database.