Disclosing Adverse Events to Patients: International Norms and Trends

Psychometric Properties of Chinese Version of the Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (C-BEDA) Tool

Aim

The Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment (BEDA) tool is used to measure barriers to the disclosure of medical errors by healthcare professionals. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the BEDA (C-BEDA).

Background

The culture of disclosure and transparency in response to medical errors has been recommended in recent years. However, there are no relevant assessment tools for measuring barriers to disclosing medical errors in China.

Methods

The C-BEDA tool underwent translation, back translation, cross-cultural adaptation in a pilot study. It was tested with 1254 healthcare professionals in Guizhou and Sichuan Provinces, China. The content validity index (CVI) was used to evaluate the content validity of the C-BEDA, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate its structural validity. The Cronbach's α coefficient and test-retest reliability were evaluated to determine its reliability.

Results

Three factors were extracted by EFA that explained 65.892% of the total variance of the C-BEDA tool. CFA showed a good fit for a three-factor structure with acceptable values: goodness-of-fit index=0.939; adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.911; incremental fit index=0.967; comparative fit index=0.967; partial least squares path modeling for confirmatory factor analysis=0.735; and root mean square error of approximation=0.058. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the average scale-level content validity index was 0.98. The Cronbach's α coefficient (0.909) and test-retest reliability (0.86) were acceptable.

Conclusion

The C-BEDA toolis a valid and reliable tool for assessing the extent of barriers to error disclosure among Chinese healthcare professionals.

The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victim (ERNST) Policy Statement on the Second Victim Phenomenon for Increasing Patient Safety

Background

The second victim phenomenon refers to the emotional trauma healthcare professionals experience following adverse events (AEs) in patient care, which can compromise their ability to provide safe care. This issue has significant implications for patient safety, with AEs leading to substantial human and economic costs.

Analysis

Current evidence indicates that AEs often result from systemic failures, profoundly affecting healthcare workers. While patient safety initiatives are in place, the psychological impact on healthcare professionals remains inadequately addressed. The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims (ERNST) emphasizes the need to support these professionals through peer support programs, systemic changes, and a shift toward a just culture in healthcare settings.

Policy Options

Key options include implementing peer support programs, revising the legal framework to decriminalize honest errors, and promoting just culture principles. These initiatives aim to mitigate the second victim phenomenon, enhance patient safety, and reduce healthcare costs.

Conclusion

Addressing the second victim phenomenon is essential for ensuring patient safety. By implementing supportive policies and fostering a just culture, healthcare systems can better manage the repercussions of AEs and support the wellbeing of healthcare professionals.

Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study

Background

There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved.

Objectives

To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement.

Design

A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases.

Setting

National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2).

Participants

We completed n = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families.

Results

The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced.

Limitations

Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups.

Conclusions

We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Healthcare workers perceptions of patient safety culture in selected Ghanaian regional hospitals: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patient safety culture is an integral part of healthcare delivery both in Ghana and globally. Therefore, understanding how frontline health workers perceive patient safety culture and the factors that influence it is very important. This qualitative study examined the health workers' perceptions of patient safety culture in selected regional hospitals in Ghana.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide a voice concerning how frontline health workers perceive patient safety culture and explain the major barriers in ensuring it.

METHOD

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 health professionals in two regional government hospitals in Ghana from March to June 2022. Participants were purposively selected and included medical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, administrators, and clinical service staff members. The inclusion criteria were one or more years of clinical experience. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes.

RESULT

The health professionals interviewed were 38% male and 62% female, of whom 54% were nurses, 4% were midwives, 28% were medical doctors; lab technicians, pharmacists, and human resources workers represented 2% each; and 4% were critical health nurses. Among them, 64% held a diploma and 36% held a degree or above. This study identified four main areas: general knowledge of patient safety culture, guidelines and procedures, attitudes of frontline health workers, and upgrading patient safety culture.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study presents a few areas for improvement in patient safety culture. Despite their positive attitudes and knowledge of patient safety, healthcare workers expressed concerns about the implementation of patient safety policies outlined by hospitals. Healthcare professionals perceived that curriculum training on patient safety during school education and the availability of dedicated officers for patient safety at their facilities may help improve patient safety.

How different countries respond to adverse events whilst patients' rights are protected

Patient safety is high on the policy agenda internationally. Learning from safety incidents is a core component in achieving the important goal of increasing patient safety. This study explores the legal frameworks in the countries to promote reporting, disclosure, and supporting healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in safety incidents. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to ascertain an overview of the legal frameworks at national level, as well as relevant policies. ERNST (The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims) group peer-reviewed data collected from countries was performed to validate information. Information from 27 countries was collected and analyzed, giving a response rate of 60%. A reporting system for patient safety incidents was in place in 85.2% (N = 23) of countries surveyed, though few (37%, N = 10) were focused on systems-learning. In about half of the countries (48.1%, N = 13) open disclosure depends on the initiative of HCPs. The tort liability system was common in most countries. No-fault compensation schemes and alternative forms of redress were less common. Support for HCPs involved in patient safety incidents was extremely limited, with just 11.1% (N = 3) of participating countries reporting that supports were available in all healthcare institutions. Despite progress in the patient safety movement worldwide, the findings suggest that there are considerable differences in the approach to the reporting and disclosure of patient safety incidents. Additionally, models of compensation vary limiting patients' access to redress. Finally, the results highlight the need for comprehensive support for HCPs involved in safety incidents.

Error disclosure in neonatal intensive care: a multicentre, prospective, observational study

IMPORTANCE

Surveys based on hypothetical situations suggest that health-care providers agree that disclosure of errors and adverse events to patients and families is a professional obligation but do not always disclose them. Disclosure rates and reasons for the choice have not previously been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the proportion of errors disclosed by neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) professionals to parents and identify motives for and barriers to disclosure.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study nested in a randomised controlled trial (Study on Preventing Adverse Events in Neonates (SEPREVEN); ClinicalTrials.gov). Event disclosure was not intended to be related to the intervention tested.

SETTING

10 NICUs in France with a 20-month follow-up, starting November 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

n=1019 patients with NICU stay ≥2 days with ≥1 error.

EXPOSURE

Characteristics of errors (type, severity, timing of discovery), patients and professionals, self-reported motives for disclosure and non-disclosure.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Rate of error disclosure reported anonymously and voluntarily by physicians and nurses; perceived parental reaction to disclosure.

RESULTS

Among 1822 errors concerning 1019 patients (mean gestational age: 30.8±4.5 weeks), 752 (41.3%) were disclosed. Independent risk factors for non-disclosure were nighttime discovery of error (OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.30), milder consequence (for moderate consequence: OR 1.85; 95% CI 0.89 to 3.86; no consequence: OR 6.49; 95% CI 2.99 to 14.11), a shorter interval between admission and error, error type and fewer beds. The most frequent reported reasons for non-disclosure were parental absence at its discovery and a perceived lack of serious consequence.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In the particular context of the SEPREVEN randomised controlled trial of NICUs, staff did not disclose the majority of errors to parents, especially in the absence of moderate consequence for the infant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02598609.

Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence

BACKGROUND

Open Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts.

METHODS

Realist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified.

RESULTS

After realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.

Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service

OBJECTIVE

The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice.

METHODS

We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.

Patient Safety and Legal Regulations: A Total-Scale Analysis of the Scientific Literature

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to quantitatively analyze the scientific literature landscape covering legal regulations of patient safety.

METHODS

This retrospective bibliometric analysis queried Web of Science database to identify relevant publications. The identified scientific literature was quantitatively evaluated to reveal prevailing study themes, contributing journals, countries, institutions, and authors, as well as citation patterns.

RESULTS

The identified 1295 publications had a mean of 13.8 citations per publication and an h-index of 57. Approximately 78.8% of them were published since 2010, with the United States being the top contributor and having the greatest publication growth. A total of 79.2% (n = 1025) of the publications were original articles, and 12.5% (n = 162) were reviews. The top authors (by number of publications published on the topic) were based in the United States and Spain and formed 3 collaboration clusters. The top institutions by number of published articles were mainly based in the United States and United Kingdom, with Harvard University being on top. Internal medicine, surgery, and nursing were the most recurring clinical disciplines. Among 4 distinct approaches to improve patient safety, reforms of the liability system (n = 91) were most frequently covered, followed by new forms of regulation (n = 73), increasing transparency (n = 67), and financial incentives (n = 38).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 78.8% of the publications on patient safety and its legal implications were published since 2010, and the United States was the top contributor. Approximately 79.2% of the publications were original articles, whereas 12.5% were reviews. Healthcare sciences services was the most recurring journal category, with internal medicine, surgery, and nursing being the most recurring clinical disciplines. Key relevant laws around the globe were identified from the literature set, with some examples highlighted from the United States, Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, Poland, and Indonesia. Our findings highlight the evolving nature and the diversity of legislative regulations at international scale and underline the importance of healthcare workers to be aware of the development and latest advancement in this field and to understand that different requirements are established in different jurisdictions so as to safeguard the necessary standards of patient safety.

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.

Investigation of the critical factors required to improve the disclosure and discussion of harm with affected women and families: a study protocol for a qualitative, realist study in NHS maternity services (the DISCERN study)

Patients and families are entitled to an open disclosure and discussion of healthcare incidents affecting them. This reduces distress and contributes to learning for safety improvement. Complex barriers prevent effective disclosure and continue in the English NHS, despite a legal duty of candour. NHS maternity services are the focus of significant efforts to improve this. There is limited understanding of how, and to what effect, they are achieving this. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 27-month, three-phased realist evaluation identifying the critical factors contributing to improvements in the disclosure and discussion of incidents with affected families. The evaluation asks 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, in why respects and why?'.Phase 1: establish working hypotheses of key factors and outcomes of interventions improving disclosure and discussion, by realist literature review and in-depth realist interviews with key stakeholders (n=approximately 20]Phase 2: refine or overturn hypotheses, by ethnographic case-study analysis using triangulated qualitative methods (non-participant observation, interviews (n=12) and documentary analysis) in up to 4 purposively sampled NHS trusts.Phase 3: consider hypotheses and design outputs during seven interpretive forums. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Phase 1 study approval by King's College London's Ethics Panel (BDMRESC 22033) and National Research Ethical Approval for Phases 2-3 (IRASID:262197) (CAG:20/CAG/0121) (REC:20/LO/1152). Study sponsorship by King's College London (HS&DR 17/99/85).Findings to be disseminated through tailored management briefings; clinician and family guidance (written and video); lay summaries, academic papers, and report with outputs tailored to maximise academic and societal impact. Views of women/family groups are represented throughout.

How will state medical boards handle cases involving disclosure and apology for medical errors?

Surveys were sent to 68 American state medical boards, including territories of the United States, inquiring how they handle—or will handle—cases involving disclosure and apology after medical errors. Surveys were not sent to specialty boards. Thirty-eight state medical boards ( n  =  38, 56%) responded to the survey, with 31 completing the survey (46% completion rate) and seven boards ( n  =  7) providing explanations for nonparticipation and other thoughts; 30 boards did not respond in any manner. Boards that completed the survey indicated that disclosure and apology and other positive post-event behavior by physicians are likely to be viewed favorably and disclosing physicians will not be easy targets for disciplinary measures, though boards also stressed they view each case on the merits and patient safety is their top priority. Recommendations are made for policy makers and other stakeholders.

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.

The Impacts of Disclosure and a Proactive Compensation Offer on Chinese Patients' Actions After Medical Errors

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to obtain evidence of the impacts of error disclosure and the impacts of a proactive compensation offer on Chinese patients' actions after medical errors.

METHODS

A total of 915 responses were collected from a questionnaire survey. Two fictitious cases (entailed moderate and severe harm) that involved error disclosure were described. One of 5 disclosure and compensation types was randomly provided to each participant. The 5 types were combinations of 3 disclosure types (no disclosure, partial disclosure, and full disclosure) and 2 proactive compensation offer categories (no offer and an offer), with the exception of no disclosure but a proactive compensation offer. The respondents were asked about their willingness to take actions if they were the affected patient.

RESULTS

The generalized ordinal logit regression model showed that error disclosure did not increase the likelihood of the patients taking action, such as changing physicians, complaining, or filing lawsuits. A proactive compensation offer decreased the patients' willingness to file lawsuits but had no significant influence on the other action choices. In addition, the patients' actions were affected by other factors, such as the severity of the error, age, sex, education level, being religious, prior error experience, and health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that "disclosure and compensation" programs are developed in China. To ensure their implementation, it is recommended that appropriate training is provided and that the disclosure culture in health care organizations is improved. Furthermore, laws or regulations are required that govern error disclosure and provide support for health care professionals and organizations.

What Drives Patients' Complaints About Adverse Events in Their Hospital Care? A Data Linkage Study of Australian Adults 45 Years and Older

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine from patient-reported data the relationships between patients' experiences of adverse events (AEs), the disclosure of the events, and patients propensity for complaints or legal action.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was administered to 20,000 participants randomly chosen from the 45 and Up Study. The surveyed participants were older than 45 years and hospitalized in New South Wales, Australia, between January and June 2014. They were identified using data linkage to capture experiences of AEs.

RESULTS

Of the 7661 respondents, 474 participants (7%) reported experiencing an AE. Those who did not receive an apology or expression of regret in the incident disclosure process were significantly more likely to make a complaint (P < 0.05). Those who found out about the event from hospital staff but did not receive a formal open disclosure process were found to be significantly more likely to seek legal advice (P < 0.05). Patients who made a complaint generally perceived that they experienced more problems in their hospital care, with significant differences identified between those who did and did not make a complaint on 13 of the 15-item Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Although incident disclosure was not associated with whether a complaint was made or legal action pursued, significant associations between key aspects of the disclosure process and these outcomes were noted. Significant differences between those who did and did not make a complaint were noted in relation to the timing and apology components of open disclosure. The critical role of overall patient experience in the context of optimal AE management was evident from these data.

Patients' and Families' Experiences Regarding Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents

In South Korea, disclosure of patients' safety incidents is not common in health care settings. Thus, this study identified patients' and families' experiences regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents. Data were collected through in-depth individual interviews from May 25, 2020, to June 23, 2020, and analyzed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method. The participants consisted of 15 patients and their families who had experienced patient safety incidents in hospitals. It is essential to form a base of mutual understanding to enable disclosure and promote follow-up management systems that can ethically and responsibly handle patient safety incidents. Concrete protocols and policies need to be developed to protect patients and their families from physical/psychological injury and the stress experienced due to patient safety incidents. The patients and their families desired changes to improve protocols for proper disclosure, help health care professionals adopt an ethical and mature attitude, and develop professional health care policies regarding patients' safety incidents.

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.

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.

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.

Communication of bad news in relation with surgery or anesthesia: An interdisciplinary simulation training program

INTRODUCTION

Disclosure of damage related to care is a difficult area of communication due to the physician's feeling of guilt or the fear of liability. The aim of this study was to develop, and to evaluate the impact of an inter-disciplinary simulation program on communication of damage related to care.

METHODS

Residents in gynecology/obstetrics and anesthesiology participated in role-playing scenarios of communication of damage related to care. We assessed verbal, non-verbal communication skills and inter-disciplinary relations with a modified SPIKES protocol and with a video analysis with predefined indicators. We evaluated long-term impact of the training at 3-6 months with combining self-assessment and a video analysis on retained knowledge.

RESULTS

We included 80 residents in 15 sessions of simulation. Satisfaction regarding the simulation training was high (9.1/10 [8.9-9.3]). The part of the SPIKES protocol "setting up the interview" was the more difficult to apply. Empathic attitude was adopted 80 % of the time in the two scenarios with a life-threatening complication but was less common in the anesthetic one (broken tooth). The residents found interdisciplinary disclosure helpful due to support from the other resident. Immediately after the session, residents reported an important improvement in communication skills and that the session would significantly change their practice. At 3-6 months, reports were still largely positive but less than on immediate evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Residents did not master the most important communication skills. The interdisciplinary method to breaking bad news was felt useful.

The relationship between the perception of open disclosure of patient safety incidents, perception of patient safety culture, and ethical awareness in nurses

Background

Scientific advances have resulted in more complex medical systems, which in turn have led to an increase in the number of patient safety incidents (PSIs). In this environment, the importance of honest disclosure of PSIs is rising, which highlight the need to settle a reliable system. This study aimed to investigate the effects of patient safety culture and ethical awareness on open disclosure of PSIs.

Methods

Data were collected from 389 nurses using self-reported perceptions of open disclosure of PSIs, perceptions of patient safety culture, and ethical awareness.

Results

Perception of open disclosure of PSIs was significantly correlated with ethical awareness and perception of patient safety culture. Ethical awareness had the greatest impact on perception of PSIs, and two components of the perception of patient safety culture, namely overall knowledge about patient safety and staffing, were found to have significant effects.

Conclusions

To enhance nurses’ perception of open disclosure of PSIs, educational curriculum and programs that teach and practice fundamental ethical values are needed. Furthermore, it also calls for effort on the part of healthcare institutions and the government, as well as people’s trust, to implement a legal safety net and foster patient safety culture to promote honest disclosure of PSIs to patients.

Physicians' attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors: A qualitative study

The experiences of physicians’ errors could affect their professional practice. The aim of study was to explore physicians’ experiences of medical errors and its consequences. This was a qualitative study in which ten Brazilian physicians were selected through purposive sampling. The data were collected via semistructured interviews and analyzed through principles derived of the phenomenological method. The interview topics were around how the error occurred in their practice, its process of disclosure and consequences of medical errors. Excessive workload and difficulty communicating among physicians are some of the factors that may increase the likelihood of medical error. Not looking for help after the error was a common attitude. This may be related to the difficulty for some physicians to acquire new practices after the error, even though physicians have shown that experiencing a medical error situation has a negative impact in their lives. To disclose training and institutional practices which contribute to the dissemination of conduct favorable to the improvement of medical practice.

Disclosure of adverse events: a data linkage study reporting patient experiences among Australian adults aged ≥45 years

Objective Since Australia initiated national open disclosure standards in 2002, open disclosure policies have been adopted in all Australian states and territories. Yet, research evidence regarding their adoption is limited. The aim of the present study was to determine the frequency with which patients who report an adverse event had information disclosed to them about the incident, including whether they participated in a formal open disclosure process, their experiences of the process and the extent to which these align with the current New South Wales (NSW) policy. Methods A cross-sectional survey about patient experiences of disclosure associated with an adverse event was administered to a random sample of 20000 participants in the 45 and Up Study who were hospitalised in NSW, Australia, between January and June 2014. Results Of the 18993 eligible potential participants, completed surveys were obtained from 7661 (40% response rate), with 474 (7%) patients reporting an adverse event. Of those who reported an adverse event, a significant majority reported an informal or bedside disclosure (91%; 430/474). Only 79 patients (17%) participated in a formal open disclosure meeting. Most informal disclosures were provided by nurses, with only 25% provided by medical practitioners. Conclusions Experiences of open disclosure may be enhanced by informing patients of their right to full disclosure in advance of or upon admission to hospital, and recognition of and support for informal or bedside disclosure for appropriate types of incidents. A review of the open disclosure guidelines in relation to the types of adverse events that require formal open disclosure and those more suitable to informal bedside disclosure is indicated. Guidelines for bedside disclosure should be drafted to assist medical practitioners and other health professionals facilitate and improve their communications about adverse events. Alignment of formal disclosure with policy requirements may also be enhanced by training multidisciplinary teams in the process. What is known about the topic? While open disclosure is required in all cases of serious adverse events, patients' experiences are variable, and lack of, or poor quality disclosures are all too common. What does this paper add? This paper presents experiences reported by patients across New South Wales in a large cross-sectional survey. Unlike previous studies of open disclosure, recently hospitalised patients were identified and invited using data linkage with medical records. Findings suggest that most patients receive informal disclosures rather than a process that aligns with the current policy guidance. What are the implications for practitioners? Experiences of open disclosure may be enhanced by informing patients of their right to full disclosure in advance of or upon admission to hospital, and recognition of and support for informal or bedside disclosure for appropriate types of incidents.

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.

Action after Adverse Events in Healthcare: An Integrative Literature Review

Adverse events are common in healthcare. Three types of victims of patient-related adverse events can be identified. The first type includes patients and their families, the second type includes healthcare professionals involved in an adverse event and the third type includes healthcare organisations in which an adverse event occurs. The purpose of this integrative review is to synthesise knowledge, theory and evidence regarding action after adverse events, based on literature published in the last ten years (2009–2018). In the studies critically evaluated (n = 25), key themes emerged relating to the first, second and third victim elements. The first victim elements comprise attention to revealing an adverse event, communication after an event, first victim support and complete apology. The second victim elements include second victim support types and services, coping strategies, professional changes after adverse events and learning about adverse event phenomena. The third victim elements consist of organisational action after adverse events, strategy, infrastructure and training and open communication about adverse events. There is a lack of comprehensive models for action after adverse events. This requires understanding of the phenomenon along with ambition to manage adverse events as a whole. When an adverse event is identified and a concern expressed, systematic damage preventing and ameliorating actions should be immediately launched. System-wide development is needed.

The Strange Case of a Broken Periodontal Instrument Tip

This case report describes a rare case of a broken periodontal probe tip and its removal. A male patient presented himself in June 2019 due to a painful tooth in the upper left quadrant. The patient elected treatment in the dental school’s student course. In October 2019, in preparation for full-mouth rehabilitation, a complete diagnostic status was performed, including radiographs. In this context, a metal-dense fragment was identified in the apical region of the (missing) tooth 45. It was diagnosed as the broken tip of a periodontal probe (type AE P OWB). Since a PCP-12 probe is generally used in-house, iatrogenic damage during the initial examination or student course could be excluded a priori. The patient was not able to remember any treatment that could be associated with the instrument’s breaking. Since the probe fragment was palpable and a translocation could not be precluded, the patient agreed to its removal under local anesthesia, after a cone-beam CT. This article describes and discusses this particular case, with special emphasis on iatrogenic instrument fractures and their removal.

What Ibero-American hospitals do when things go wrong? A cross-sectional international study

Objective

To know what hospital managers and safety leaders in Ibero-American countries are doing to respond effectively to the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) with serious consequences for patients.

Design

Cross-sectional international study.

Setting

Public and private hospitals in Ibero-American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Portugal and Spain).

Participants

A convenience sample of hospital managers and safety leaders from eight Ibero-American countries. A minimum of 25 managers/leaders from each country were surveyed.

Interventions

A selection of 37 actions for the effective management of AEs was explored. These were related to the safety culture, existence of a crisis plan, communication and transparency processes with the patients and their families, attention to second victims and institutional communication.

Main Outcome Measure

Degree of implementation of the actions studied.

Results

A total of 190 managers/leaders from 126 (66.3%) public hospitals and 64 (33.7%) private hospitals participated. Reporting systems, in-depth analysis of incidents and non-punitive approaches were the most implemented interventions, while patient information and care for second victims after an AE were the least frequent interventions.

Conclusions

The majority of these hospitals have not protocolized how to act after an AE. For this reason, it is urgent to develop and apply a strategic action plan to respond to this imperative safety challenge. This is the first study to identify areas of work and future research questions in Ibero-American countries.

Classification of plastic surgery malpractice complaints brought before the São Paulo Medical Board that were treated as professional-misconduct cases: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, there is an ethical and moral necessity to establish rules that govern professional attitudes and conduct. In the medical field, these rules are multifaceted, given the health consequences inherent to medical procedures. Ethics is an even more delicate subject when it comes to plastic surgery, since one of the aims of this particular medical specialty is esthetic improvement of the body.

OBJECTIVE

To survey and classify São Paulo State Medical Board investigations of plastic-surgery complaints that were treated as professional-misconduct cases between 2007 and 2016.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional study conducted in a medical council.

METHODS

A total of 360 cases were reviewed. Among these, 8 (2.23%) were dismissed, 1 (0.27%) became an administrative lawsuit and 351 (97.50%) were treated as professional-misconduct cases.

RESULTS

A breakdown of the complaints filed over the nine-year period showed that complaints concerning malpractice were the most common (28.43%), followed by those regarding medical advertising (24.19%) and poor doctor-patient relationships (10.39%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, the number of complaints lodged decreased over the last two years reviewed, although complaints regarding malpractice and poor doctor-patient relationships increased by 10% over the same period. In order to further reduce the number of medical board investigations, the medical establishment needs to carefully review the medical training of students and doctors at every stage of their careers.

The relationship of moral sensitivity and patient safety attitudes with nursing students' perceptions of disclosure of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study

Disclosure of patient safety incidents is a healthcare management strategy that primarily involves responding after incidents. We investigated the association between nursing students’ moral sensitivity, attitudes about patient safety, and perceptions of open disclosure of patient safety incidents in Korea. Data were collected from 407 nursing students at four nursing universities using self-reported moral sensitivity, attitudes about patient safety, and perceptions about open disclosure of patient safety incidents as measures. The data were analyzed using t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and a multiple regression. As moral sensitivity and attitudes about patient safety improved, nursing students’ perceptions regarding the open disclosure of patient safety incidents improved significantly. After controlling for gender, grade, and major satisfaction, the effect of changing attitudes about patient safety was greater than that of moral sensitivity for all perceptions of open disclosure. An education and intervention program is needed to improve nursing students’ attitudes about patient safety and promote the open disclosure of patient safety incidents during undergraduate training.

When facing our fallibility constitutes "safe practice": Further evidence for the Medical Error Disclosure Competence (MEDC) guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This study pursues further empirical validation of the "Medical Error Disclosure Competence (MEDC)" guidelines. The following research questions are addressed: (1) What communicative skills predict patients' perceived disclosure adequacy? (2) To what extent do patients' adequacy perceptions predict disclosure effectiveness? (3) Are there any significant sex differences in the MEDC constructs?

METHODS

A sample of 193 respondents completed an online survey about a medical error they experienced in the past 5 years, and about the subsequent disclosure of that error to them.

RESULTS

One in four patients had experienced a medical error, only a third of them received a disclosure. Only interpersonal adaptability influenced disclosure adequacy, with a large effect size. Adequacy, in turn, predicted both patients' relational distancing and approach behaviors. Nonverbally skillful disclosures significantly decreased the likelihood of patient trauma. Expressions of remorse significantly increased patient resilience. Nonverbal skills (-) and a full account (+) predicted patients' tendency to harm themselves. Males were more reactive to disclosures than female patients.

CONCLUSION

MEDC guidelines-adherent disclosure communication maintains the provider-patient relationship, increase patient resilience, and decreases patient trauma after a medical error.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Given the results of this study, adherence to the MEDC-guidelines must be considered "safe practice."

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.

The Function of Disclosing Medical Errors: New Cultural Challenges for Physicians

A general consensus has been reached in health care organizations that the disclosure of medical errors can be a very powerful way to improve patients and physicians well-being and serves as a core component to high quality health care. This practice strongly encourages transparent communication with patients after medical errors or unanticipated outcomes. However, many countries, such as Brazil, do not have a culture of disclosing harmful errors to patients or standards emphasizing the importance of disclosing, taking responsibility, apologizing, and discussing the prevention of recurrences. Medical error is not discussed or approached during medical school. The stigma of error has a strong connection with value judgments, and emotional support for physicians does not exist. This paper suggests that open communication with the patient is essential. Guidance about error disclosure from health care organizations would be helpful for quality and patient safety and for health care professionals in countries like Brazil.

Transforming concepts in patient safety: a progress report

In 2009, the National Patient Safety Foundation’s Lucian Leape Institute (LLI) published a paper identifying five areas of healthcare that require system-level attention and action to advance patient safety. The authors argued that to truly transform the safety of healthcare, there was a need to address medical education reform; care integration; restoring joy and meaning in work and ensuring the safety of the healthcare workforce; consumer engagement in healthcare and transparency across the continuum of care. In the ensuing years, the LLI convened a series of expert roundtables to address each concept, look at obstacles to implementation, assess potential for improvement, identify potential implementation partners and issue recommendations for action. Reports of these activities were published between 2010 and 2015. While all five areas have seen encouraging developments, multiple challenges remain. In this paper, the current members of the LLI (now based at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement) assess progress made in the USA since 2009 and identify ongoing challenges.

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.

Lessons learned for reducing the negative impact of adverse events on patients, health professionals and healthcare organizations

Purpose

To summarize the knowledge about the aftermath of adverse events (AEs) and develop a recommendation set to reduce their negative impact in patients, health professionals and organizations in contexts where there is no previous experiences and apology laws are not present.

Data sources

Review studies published between 2000 and 2015, institutional websites and experts' opinions on patient safety.

Study selection

Studies published and websites on open disclosure, and the second and third victims' phenomenon. Four Focus Groups participating 27 healthcare professionals.

Data extraction

Study characteristic and outcome data were abstracted by two authors and reviewed by the research team.

Results of data synthesis

Fourteen publications and 16 websites were reviewed. The recommendations were structured around eight areas: (i) safety and organizational policies, (ii) patient care, (iii) proactive approach to preventing reoccurrence, (iv) supporting the clinician and healthcare team, (v) activation of resources to provide an appropriate response, (vi) informing patients and/or family members, (vii) incidents' analysis and (viii) protecting the reputation of health professionals and the organization.

Conclusion

Recommendations preventing aftermath of AEs have been identified. These have been designed for the hospital and the primary care settings; to cope with patient's emotions and for tacking the impact of AE in the second victim's colleagues. Its systematic use should help for the establishment of organizational action plans after an AE.

Assessing the Health-Care Risk: The Clinical-VaR, a Key Indicator for Sound Management

Clinical risk includes any undesirable situation or operational factor that may have negative consequences for patient safety or capable of causing an adverse event (AE). The AE, intentional or unintentionally, may be related to the human factor, that is, medical errors (MEs). Therefore, the importance of the health-care risk management is a current and relevant issue on the agenda of many public and private institutions. The objective of the management has been evolving from the identification of AE to the assessment of cost-effective and efficient measures that improve the quality control through monitoring. Consequently, the goal of this paper is to propose a Key Risk Indicator (KRI) that enhances the advancement of the health-care management system. Thus, the application of the Value at Risk (VaR) concept in combination to the Loss Distribution Approach (LDA) is proved to be a proactive tool, within the frame of balanced scorecard (BSC), in health organizations. For this purpose, the historical events recorded in the Algo-OpData^® database (Algorithmics Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) have been used. The analysis highlights the importance of risk in the financials outcomes of the sector. The results of paper show the usefulness of the Clinical-VaR to identify and monitor the risk and sustainability of the implemented controls.

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

IMPORTANCE

Dissatisfaction with medical malpractice litigation has stimulated interest by health care organizations in developing alternatives to meet patients' needs after medical injury. In communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs), hospitals and liability insurers communicate with patients about adverse events, use investigation findings to improve patient safety, and offer compensation when substandard care caused harm. Despite increasing interest in this approach, little is known about patients' and family members' experiences with CRPs.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences of patients and family members with medical injuries and CRPs to understand different aspects of institutional responses to injury that promoted and impeded reconciliation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From January 6 through June 30, 2016, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 27), family members (n = 3), and staff (n = 10) at 3 US hospitals that operate CRPs. Patients and families were eligible for participation if they experienced a CRP, spoke English, and could no longer file a malpractice claim because they had accepted a settlement or the statute of limitations had expired. The CRP administrators identified hospital and insurer staff who had been involved in a CRP event and had a close relationship with the injured patient and/or family. They identified patients and families by applying the inclusion criteria to their CRP databases. Of 66 possible participants, 40 interviews (61%) were completed, including 30 of 50 invited patients and families (60%) and 10 of 16 invited staff (63%).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patients' reported satisfaction with disclosure and reconciliation efforts made by hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 40 participants completed interviews (15 men and 25 women; mean [range] age, 46 [18-67] years). Among the 30 patients and family members interviewed, 27 patients experienced injuries attributed to error and received compensation. The CRP experience was positive overall for 18 of the 30 patients and family members, and 18 patients continued to receive care at the hospital. Satisfaction was highest when communications were empathetic and nonadversarial, including compensation negotiations. Patients and families expressed a strong need to be heard and expected the attending physician to listen without interrupting during conversations about the event. Thirty-five of the 40 respondents believed that including plaintiffs' attorneys in these discussions was helpful. Sixteen of the 30 patients and family members deemed their compensation to be adequate but 17 reported that the offer was not sufficiently proactive. Patients and families strongly desired to know what the hospital did to prevent recurrences of the event, but 24 of 30 reported receiving no information about safety improvement efforts.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

As hospitals strive to provide more patient-centered care, opportunities exist to improve institutional responses to injuries and promote reconciliation.

Apology in cases of medical error disclosure: Thoughts based on a preliminary study

Background

Disclosing medical errors is considered necessary by patients, ethicists, and health care professionals. Literature insists on the framing of this disclosure and describes the apology as appropriate and necessary. However, this policy seems difficult to put into practice. Few works have explored the function and meaning of the apology.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the role ascribed to apology in communication between healthcare professionals and patients when disclosing a medical error, and to discuss these findings using a linguistic and philosophical perspective.

Methods

Qualitative exploratory study, based on face-to-face semi-structured interviews, with seven physicians in a neonatal unit in France. Discourse analysis.

Results

Four themes emerged. Difference between apology in everyday life and in the medical encounter; place of the apology in the process of disclosure together with explanations, regrets, empathy and ways to avoid repeating the error; effects of the apology were to allow the patient-physician relationship undermined by the error, to be maintained, responsibility to be accepted, the first steps towards forgiveness to be taken, and a less hierarchical doctor-patient relationship to be created; ways of expressing apology (“I am sorry”) reflected regrets and empathy more than an explicit apology.

Conclusion

This study highlights how the act of apology can be seen as a “language act” as described by philosophers Austin and Searle, and how it functions as a technique for making amends following a wrongdoing and as an action undertaken in order that neither party should lose face, thus echoing the sociologist Goffmann’s interaction theory. This interpretation also accords with the views of Lazare, for whom the function of apology is a restoration of dignity after the humiliation of the error. This approach to the apology illustrates how meaning and impact of real-life language acts can be clarified by philosophical and sociological ideas.

Design and Testing of BACRA, a Web-Based Tool for Middle Managers at Health Care Facilities to Lead the Search for Solutions to Patient Safety Incidents

BACKGROUND

Lack of time, lack of familiarity with root cause analysis, or suspicion that the reporting may result in negative consequences hinder involvement in the analysis of safety incidents and the search for preventive actions that can improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was develop a tool that enables hospitals and primary care professionals to immediately analyze the causes of incidents and to propose and implement measures intended to prevent their recurrence.

METHODS

The design of the Web-based tool (BACRA) considered research on the barriers for reporting, review of incident analysis tools, and the experience of eight managers from the field of patient safety. BACRA's design was improved in successive versions (BACRA v1.1 and BACRA v1.2) based on feedback from 86 middle managers. BACRA v1.1 was used by 13 frontline professionals to analyze incidents of safety; 59 professionals used BACRA v1.2 and assessed the respective usefulness and ease of use of both versions.

RESULTS

BACRA contains seven tabs that guide the user through the process of analyzing a safety incident and proposing preventive actions for similar future incidents. BACRA does not identify the person completing each analysis since the password introduced to hide said analysis only is linked to the information concerning the incident and not to any personal data. The tool was used by 72 professionals from hospitals and primary care centers. BACRA v1.2 was assessed more favorably than BACRA v1.1, both in terms of its usefulness (z=2.2, P=.03) and its ease of use (z=3.0, P=.003).

CONCLUSIONS

BACRA helps to analyze incidents of safety and to propose preventive actions. BACRA guarantees anonymity of the analysis and reduces the reluctance of professionals to carry out this task. BACRA is useful and easy to use.

Dental root elevator embedded into a subgingival caries: a case report

Background

Breakage of surgical instruments is a rare complication. A mistake in operator technique or sub-standard/aged tools could lead to this type of accident. A tooth elevator is an instrument used in minor oral surgical procedures to luxate the tooth or fractured root from its socket. The authors have not found any previously published cases reporting the breakage of a tooth elevator tip which then remained as a foreign body in a hidden caries cavity.

Case presentation

A 28-year-old African black male was referred to a hospital in Tanzania for an intraoral radiography. The patient explained that six months previously his mandibular left third molar had been extracted. Whilst the healing process had been satisfactory, he had recently experienced acute oral pain in this region. The dental X-ray showed an image consistent with a piece of broken metal embedded in a distal subgingival caries at the mandibular left second molar.

Conclusion

Oral and dental surgeons should take particular care when employing metal instruments with strong force in poorly visible areas. A radiographic study should be carried out when instrument breakage occurs. If an unexpected accident takes place during a surgical procedure, the patient must be informed in accordance with ethical codes, and suitable measures adopted to resolve the issue.