Disclosure of medical errors: what factors influence how patients respond?

Fragmentation of Diagnostic Imaging Leading to a Management Error in a Patient With Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Fragmentation of imaging leading to a management error in a patient with small-cell lung cancer.

Time for health change: promoting community-based diabetes screening and prevention with video vignettes and social marketing

Meaningful communication between health service users and providers is essential. However, when stakeholders are unfamiliar with new health services, innovative communication methods are necessary to engage them. The aim of the study was to create, validate, and evaluate a video-vignette to enhance stakeholders' (physicians, pharmacists, and laypeople) engagement and understanding of an innovative pharmacy-based diabetes screening and prevention program. Also, to assess the video-vignette's capacity to measure appetite and appeal for such preventive programs. This mixed-methods study consisted of two phases. In phase one, a video-vignette depicting the proposed screening and prevention program was developed and validated following established international guidelines (n = 25). The video-vignette was then evaluated by stakeholders (n = 99). In phase two, the video-vignette's capacity as a communication tool was tested in focus groups and interviews to explore stakeholders' perspectives and engagement on the proposed service (n = 22). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. In total, 146 stakeholders participated. The script was well-received, deemed credible, and realistic. Furthermore, the video-vignette received high ratings for its value, content, interest, realism, and visual and audio quality. The focus groups and interviews provided valuable insights into the design and delivery of the new service. The video-vignette compellingly portrayed the novel pharmacy-based diabetes screening and prevention service. It facilitated in-depth discussions among stakeholders and significantly enhanced their understanding and appreciation of such health services. The video-vignette also generated significant interest in pharmacy-based diabetes screening and prevention programs, serving as a powerful tool to promote enrollment in these initiatives.

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

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

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

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

State-of-the art training in neonatal resuscitation

Healthcare training has traditionally emphasized acquisition and recall of vast amounts of content knowledge; however, delivering care during resuscitation of neonates requires much more than content knowledge. As the science of resuscitation has progressed, so have the methodologies and technologies used to train healthcare professionals in the cognitive, technical and behavioral skills necessary for effective resuscitation. Simulation of clinical scenarios, debriefing, virtual reality, augmented reality and audiovisual recordings of resuscitations of human neonates are increasingly being used in an effort to improve human and system performance during this life-saving intervention. In the same manner, as evidence has accumulated to support the guidelines for neonatal resuscitation so, too, has affirmation of training methodologies and technologies. This guarantees that training in neonatal resuscitation will continue to evolve to meet the needs of healthcare professionals charged with caring for newborns at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives.

Why Are Patients Unhappy with Their Healthcare? A Romanian Physicians’ Perspective

Background: Medical professional liability complaints are not triggered by a single factor, but rather by multiple factors, each having more or less implications, such as the characteristics of the physician, the medical system, the patients, the complexity of their pathology, and the inherent limits of medicine. Knowledge about the factors that initiate the complaint procedure is essential to identify the targeted measures to limit their prevalence and impact. The purpose of this study was to identify the reasons behind the malpractice complaints and the factors that may influence the initiation of complaints by the patients. Material and Methods: This study was conducted using an online questionnaire, addressed to Romanian doctors, with questions about the reasons for patient dissatisfaction and complaints, the factors that predispose a physician to being complained against, and the protective factors against patient complaints. Results: The study group included 1684 physicians, of whom 16.1% were themselves involved in a complaint, and 52.5% knew of a colleague who was complained against. The opinions of the participants regarding the reasons for the complaints, the predisposing factors to complaints, and the factors that contributed to the reported incident showed a strong link between professional liability complaints and the physician–patient/patient’s family relationship. The relationship between fellow physicians is additional to this. Conclusion: This study reveals that the improvement in the relational aspects of medical practice (physician–patient relationship and relationship between physicians) has the highest potential to decrease the number of malpractice complaints. Its practical relevance is related to the need for training physicians in the relational aspects of medical practice during academic years and throughout their career.

Models of teaching medical errors

Medical errors are relatively common causes of preventable iatrogenic adverse events. We have focused on teaching models in certain courses of study that have been reported to have significant positive impacts on the outcomes of teaching about medical errors. All healthcare organizations must establish suitable models of teaching about patient safety and medical errors as a preventive measure and as an early intervention strategy. Teaching undergraduate medical students and physicians in training how to manage and disclose medical errors helps them develop lifelong skills that can effectively reduce such errors.

The literature search was conducted in international databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar search engine using English equivalent keywords, from 1998 up to April, 2020. The search strategy used the following subject headings terms: “Medical error(s)” AND “Teaching”. Out of 40 Studies included, 6 studies were selected to have evaluated models of health care training and simulation based teaching of medical errors and patient safety in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Second victims in health care: current perspectives

Medical errors are a serious public health problem and the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. Every day, the health care professionals (HCPs) practice their skill and knowledge within excessively complex situations and meet unexpected patient outcomes. These unexpected complications and unintentional errors will always be a part of the medical system due to the universal nature of human fallibility and technology. While not all errors are life-threatening, they can significantly compromise a patient's quality of life. However, the victims of medical error reach far beyond the patient. The second victim (SV), which defined for the first time by Albert Wu in his description of the impact of errors on HCPs by both personally and professionally, is a medical emergency equivalent to post-traumatic stress disorder. When the errors occur, it causes a domino effect including the four groups: the patient and family (first victim), the HCP [SV], the hospital reputation (third victim), and patients who are harmed subsequently (fourth victims). The rights of our patients to safe, reliable, and patient-centered care are critical and most important as a primary and utmost aim of medicine. However, we also have to take care of our own (SVs), especially when we have good people who mean to do well and then find themselves in an emotionally complex situation. There is a need to articulate to the public, politicians, and media how system failure leads to medical error even in hand of well-educated and competent HCPs are given an increasing clinical workload. Furthermore, despite several leading institutions in western countries have developed formal support programs that allow HCPs to cope with their emotional distress by obtaining timely support in an emphatic, confidential, non-judgmental environment, we need to raise awareness of this phenomenon and appropriate institutional responses both to harmed patients and their families and HCPs.

Filling Voice Promotion Gaps in Healthcare through a Comparative Analysis of Error Reporting and Learning Systems and Open Communication and Disclosure Policies in the United States and Germany

Voice in healthcare is crucial because of its ability to improve organizational performance and prevent medical errors. This paper contends that a comparative analysis of voice promotion in the American and German healthcare industries can strengthen a culture of safety in both countries. It provides a brief introduction to the concept of voice in healthcare, including its impact on safety culture, barriers to voice, and the dual influences of confidentiality and transparency on voice promotion policies. It then examines the theoretical basis, practical workings, and legal aspects of voluntary error reporting and error disclosure as avenues for exercising voice in the U.S. and Germany. Finally, it identifies transferable practices that can remedy shortcomings in each country's voice promotion policy.

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.

Physician gender and apologies in clinical interactions

OBJECTIVE

We examine whether patients have a preference for affective (i.e., focused on patient's emotions) or cognitive (i.e., focused on the process that led to the error) apologies that are dependent on the apologizing physician's gender. We hypothesize patients will prefer gender-congruent apologies (i.e., when females offer affective apologies and males offer cognitive apologies).

METHODS

We randomly assigned analogue patients (APs: participants instructed to imagine they were a patient) to read a scenario in which a female or male physician makes an error and provides a gender-congruent or incongruent apology. APs reported on their perceptions of the physician and legal intentions.

RESULTS

An apology-type and gender congruency effect was found such that APs preferred apologies congruent with the gender of the apologizing physician. An indirect effect of congruency on legal intentions through physician perceptions was confirmed (b=-0.24, p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that physician gender plays a role in patient reactions to different apology types.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Apology trainings should incorporate how physician characteristics can influence how patients assess and respond to apologies.

Incident learning in radiation oncology: A review

Incident learning is a key component for maintaining safety and quality in healthcare. Its use is well established and supported by professional society recommendations, regulations and accreditation, and objective evidence. There is an active interest in incident learning systems (ILS) in radiation oncology, with over 40 publications since 2010. This article is intended as a comprehensive topic review of ILS in radiation oncology, including history and summary of existing literature, nomenclature and categorization schemas, operational aspects of ILS at the institutional level including event handling and root cause analysis, and national and international ILS for shared learning. Core principles of patient safety in the context of ILS are discussed, including the systems view of error, culture of safety, and contributing factors such as cognitive bias. Finally, the topics of medical error disclosure and second victim syndrome are discussed. In spite of the rapid progress and understanding of ILS, challenges remain in applying ILS to the radiation oncology context. This comprehensive review may serve as a springboard for further work.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Safe Medication Use in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To provide ICU clinicians with evidence-based guidance on safe medication use practices for the critically ill.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science for relevant material to December 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Based on three key components: 1) environment and patients, 2) the medication use process, and 3) the patient safety surveillance system. The committee collectively developed Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions and quality of evidence statements pertaining to medication errors and adverse drug events addressing the key components. A total of 34 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions, five quality of evidence statements, and one commentary on disclosure was developed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Subcommittee members were assigned selected Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions or quality of evidence statements. Subcommittee members completed their Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation of the question with his/her quality of evidence assessment and proposed strength of recommendation, then the draft was reviewed by the relevant subcommittee. The subcommittee collectively reviewed the evidence profiles for each question they developed. After the draft was discussed and approved by the entire committee, then the document was circulated among all members for voting on the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The committee followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to determine quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline evaluates the ICU environment as a risk for medication-related events and the environmental changes that are possible to improve safe medication use. Prevention strategies for medication-related events are reviewed by medication use process node (prescribing, distribution, administration, monitoring). Detailed considerations to an active surveillance system that includes reporting, identification, and evaluation are discussed. Also, highlighted is the need for future research for safe medication practices that is specific to critically ill patients.

Disclosure of errors in optometric practice in Nigeria

Background: Human beings are prone to making mistakes, whether in their personal or professional lives. Errors in health care are not uncommon. However, it is not certain if public and professional expectations of disclosure of these errors are met in everyday practice by practitioners.Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate patients’ and optometrists’ attitudes towards disclosure of errors in eye care.Method: This was a qualitative study conducted in Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria, using focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs). The study population comprised 24 patients aged 18–42 years, with a mean age (±s.d.) of 38 ± 2.2 years, and 16 eye-care practitioners (ECPs), with a minimum of 5 years’ work experience. The optometrists were aged between 32 and 50 years with a mean age (±s.d.) of 42 ± 2.1 years. Three FGDs were conducted with the adult participants, while 16 IDIs were conducted with ECPs.Results: All participants agreed that errors do occur in eye care. Poor communication between doctors and patients, patients lying to doctors and negligence on the doctor’s part were some of the reasons given for the occurrence of errors in optometric practice. Most of the practitioners (14) agreed that major errors should be disclosed when they occur. While many of the patients (20) would want detailed information about the error, a few (4) would prefer the doctor to rectify the error rather than explaining it to them. Practitioners reported fear of litigation as a factor that could discourage them from disclosing errors. Eighteen patients reported litigation as a last resort, in the event of an error. Both parties agreed that errors caused emotional distress to them and also added that additional charges incurred should be borne by whichever party was the cause of the error.Conclusion: Errors are an unfortunate part of clinical practice. However, if patients were truthful and open in communication with their doctors and if doctors practiced within the ambit of ethical principles, the occurrence of serious errors should be few and far between.

Frequency, Expected Effects, Obstacles, and Facilitators of Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review

Objectives

We performed a systematic review to assess and aggregate the available evidence on the frequency, expected effects, obstacles, and facilitators of disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSI).

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for this systematic review and searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for English articles published between 1990 and 2014. Two authors independently conducted the title screening and abstract review. Ninety-nine articles were selected for full-text reviews. One author extracted the data and another verified them.

Results

There was considerable variation in the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. The main expected effects of DPSI were decreased intention of the general public to file medical lawsuits and punish medical professionals, increased credibility of medical professionals, increased intention of patients to revisit and recommend physicians or hospitals, higher ratings of quality of care, and alleviation of feelings of guilt among medical professionals. The obstacles to DPSI were fear of medical lawsuits and punishment, fear of a damaged professional reputation among colleagues and patients, diminished patient trust, the complexity of the situation, and the absence of a patient safety culture. However, the factors facilitating DPSI included the creation of a safe environment for reporting patient safety incidents, as well as guidelines and education for DPSI.

Conclusions

The reported frequency of the experience of the general public with DPSI was somewhat lower than the reported frequency of DPSI among medical professionals. Although we identified various expected effects of DPSI, more empirical evidence from real cases is required.

Patient dissatisfaction and institutional betrayal in the Canadian medical system: A qualitative study

Individuals who struggle with chronic medical conditions frequently use medical services and may depend on the medical system to ensure their overall well-being. As a result, they may be at a greater risk of feeling betrayed by the medical system when their needs are not being met. The current study aimed to qualitatively assess patients' negative experiences with the medical system that may lead to feelings of institutional betrayal. A total of 14 Canadian adults struggling with various chronic conditions completed an online open-ended questionnaire. Results indicated that institutional betrayal is composed of doctor-level betrayal (inadequate medical care and lack of psychological support) as well as system-level betrayal. The findings are discussed in the context of betrayal trauma theory; specifically, patients' appraisals of their negative health care experiences may play a vital role when one is considering the impact of institutional betrayal on an individual's overall well-being.

Medical Malpractice in Dermatology-Part I: Reducing the Risks of a Lawsuit

Malpractice risk is a common source of concern for the practicing physician. Dermatologists experience fewer lawsuits than most other specialists in medicine, but the risk is not negligible. All physicians should familiarize themselves with areas of potential risk and avoid medico-legal pitfalls. We present Part I of a two-part series addressing medico-legal questions common to most practitioners that cause a great deal of anxiety. Part I will focus upon risk management and prevention of future malpractice lawsuits, and Part II deals with suggestions and guidance once a lawsuit occurs. Herein, we discuss the primary sources of malpractice lawsuits delivered against healthcare practitioners including issues with informed consent, patient noncompliance, medical negligence, and inappropriate documentation, including use of electronic medical records. The overall goal is to effectively avoid these common sources of litigation. The risk management strategies discussed in this paper are relevant to the everyday practitioner and may offer physicians some degree of protection from potential liability.

Improving Communication and Resolution Following Adverse Events Using a Patient-Created Simulation Exercise

OBJECTIVE

The response to adverse events can lack patient-centeredness, perhaps because the involved institutions and other stakeholders misunderstand what patients and families go through after care breakdowns.

STUDY SETTING

Washington and Texas.

STUDY DESIGN

The HealthPact Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) created and led a five-stage simulation exercise to help stakeholders understand what patients experience following an adverse event. The half-day exercise was presented twice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Lessons learned related to the development and conduct of the exercise were synthesized from planning notes, attendee evaluations, and exercise discussion notes.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

One hundred ninety-four individuals attended (86 Washington and 108 Texas). Take-homes from these exercises included the fact that the response to adverse events can be complex, siloed, and uncoordinated. Participating in this simulation exercise led stakeholders and patient advocates to express interest in continued collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

A PFAC-designed simulation can help stakeholders understand patient and family experiences following adverse events and potentially improve their response to these events.

What, who, when, where and how to inform patients after an adverse event: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore suggestions and recommendations for conducting open disclosure with a patient after an adverse event in a setting without professionals' legal privileges.

METHOD

Qualitative study conducting focus groups/Metaplan. This study was conducted with physicians and nurses from Primary Care and Hospitals working in the public health system in Spain.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven professionals were involved 8-30 years of experience, 15 (56%) medical and 12 (44%) nurses, 13 (48%) worked in hospitals. Consensus was obtained on: how (honesty and open and direct language), where (avoid corridors, with privacy), and when to disclose (with agility but without precipitation, once information is obtained, and after reflecting on the most suitable according to the nature of the AE). There was controversy as to what to say to the patient when the AE had serious consequences and doubts about what type of incidents must be reported; who should be required to disclose (the professional involved in the AE or other professional related to the patient, the role of the staff and the management team); and in which cases an apology can be a problem.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of the AE determines who should talk with the patient in both hospital and primary care. The most appropriate way to convey an apology to the patient depends of the AE. An early, direct, empathetic and proactive action accompanied by information about compensation for the harm suffered could reduce the litigation intention.

Improving paediatric prescribing practice in a district general hospital through implementation of a quality improvement programme

Prescribing errors are a well recognised cause of adverse incidents and have a direct effect on patients.[1] This impacts on the doctor-family relationship and results in breakdown of trust and communication.[2] This quality improvement project was carried out in the paediatric ward of a district general hospital in Northern Ireland. A retrospective analysis of paediatric prescribing errors between January and December 2013 identified two errors that were felt to be secondary to under-reporting. A baseline audit was subsequently performed that highlighted 32 errors across 12 drug charts.

A driver diagram identified three components contributing to prescribing errors and relevant tests of change were developed. The three primary drivers included: education and communication, practical prescribing changes, and medicine reconciliation. Seven interventions were implemented sequentially over a six month period and their effectiveness assessed by a prospective drug chart audit. Ten drug charts were selected at random by the staff nurse allocated to medications on the day of audit. The charts were audited using a predesigned proforma and the total number of errors counted. These were subcategorised and results displayed in graphical format after each intervention.

Seven audit cycles were completed in total after each intervention was put into practice. The number of errors (including percentage change following each intervention) is as follows: intervention 1: 32 (+19%); Intervention 2: 31 (+15%); Intervention 3: 17 (-37%); Intervention 4: 12 (-56%); Intervention 5: 15 (-44%); Intervention 6: 7 (-74%); Intervention 7: 10 (-63%). In conclusion, permanent and successful measures are needed to reduce prescribing errors in order to minimise the impact of staff changeover and knowledge deficits.

Error disclosure and family members' reactions: does the type of error really matter?

OBJECTIVE

To describe how Italian clinicians disclose medical errors with clear and shared lines of responsibility.

METHODS

Thirty-eight volunteers were video-recorded in a simulated conversation while communicating a medical error to a simulated family member (SFM). They were assigned to a clear responsibility error scenario or a shared responsibility one. Simulations were coded for: mention of the term "error" and apology; communication content and affect using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. SFMs rated their willingness to have the patient continue care with the clinician.

RESULTS

Clinicians referred to an error and/or apologized in 55% of the simulations. The error was disclosed more frequently in the clear responsibility scenario (p<0.02). When the "error" was explicitly mentioned, the SFM was more attentive, sad and anxious (p≤0.05) and less willing to have the patient continue care (p<0.05). Communication was more patient-centered (p<0.05) and affectively dynamic with the SFMs showing greater anxiety, sadness, attentiveness and respectfulness in the clear responsibility scenario (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Disclosing errors is not a common practice in Italy. Clinicians disclose less frequently when responsibility is shared and indicative of a system failure.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Training programs to improve disclosure practice considering the type of error committed should be implemented.

Simulated disclosure of a medical error by residents: development of a course in specific communication skills

OBJECTIVES

Surgery residents are expected to demonstrate the ability to communicate with patients, families, and the public in a wide array of settings on a wide variety of issues. One important setting in which residents may be required to communicate with patients is in the disclosure of medical error. This article details one approach to developing a course in the disclosure of medical errors by residents.

DESIGN

Before the development of this course, residents had no education in the skills necessary to disclose medical errors to patients. Residents viewed a Web-based video didactic session and associated slide deck and then were filmed disclosing a wrong-site surgery to a standardized patient (SP). The filmed encounter was reviewed by faculty, who then along with the SP scored each encounter (5-point Likert scale) over 10 domains of physician-patient communication. The residents received individualized written critique, the numerical analysis of their individual scenario, and an opportunity to provide feedback over a number of domains. A mean score of 4.00 or greater was considered satisfactory. Faculty and SP assessments were compared with Student t test.

SETTING

Residents were filmed in a one-on-one scenario in which they had to disclose a wrong-site surgery to a SP in a Simulation Center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 12 residents, shortly to enter the clinical postgraduate year 4, were invited to participate, as they will assume service leadership roles. All were finishing their laboratory experiences, and all accepted the invitation.

RESULTS

Residents demonstrated satisfactory competence in 4 of the 10 domains assessed by the course faculty. There were significant differences in the perceptions of the faculty and SP in 5 domains. The residents found this didactic, simulated experience of value (Likert score ≥4 in 5 of 7 domains assessed in a feedback tool). Qualitative feedback from the residents confirmed the realistic feel of the encounter and other impressions.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to quantitatively demonstrate both competency and opportunities for improvement across a wide range of domains of interpersonal and communication skills. Residents are expected to communicate effectively with patients, families, and the public, as appropriate, across a broad range of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. As academic surgeons, we must be mindful of our roles as teachers, mentors, and coaches by teaching good communication skills to our residents. Courses such as the one described here can help in improving physician-patient communication. The differing perspectives of faculty and SPs regarding resident performance warrants further study.

Medication errors: an overview for clinicians

Medication error is an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality, yet it can be a confusing and underappreciated concept. This article provides a review for practicing physicians that focuses on medication error (1) terminology and definitions, (2) incidence, (3) risk factors, (4) avoidance strategies, and (5) disclosure and legal consequences. A medication error is any error that occurs at any point in the medication use process. It has been estimated by the Institute of Medicine that medication errors cause 1 of 131 outpatient and 1 of 854 inpatient deaths. Medication factors (eg, similar sounding names, low therapeutic index), patient factors (eg, poor renal or hepatic function, impaired cognition, polypharmacy), and health care professional factors (eg, use of abbreviations in prescriptions and other communications, cognitive biases) can precipitate medication errors. Consequences faced by physicians after medication errors can include loss of patient trust, civil actions, criminal charges, and medical board discipline. Methods to prevent medication errors from occurring (eg, use of information technology, better drug labeling, and medication reconciliation) have been used with varying success. When an error is discovered, patients expect disclosure that is timely, given in person, and accompanied with an apology and communication of efforts to prevent future errors. Learning more about medication errors may enhance health care professionals' ability to provide safe care to their patients.

An exploration of the implementation of open disclosure of adverse events in the UK: a scoping review and qualitative exploration

Background

In 2009 the UK National Patient Safety Agency relaunched its Being Open framework to facilitate the open disclosure of adverse events to patients in the NHS. The implementation of the framework has been, and remains, challenging in practice.

Aim

The aim of this work was to both critically evaluate and extend the current evidence base relating to open disclosure, with a view to supporting the implementation of a policy of open disclosure of adverse events in the NHS.

Methods

This work was conducted in three phases. The first phase comprised two focused systematic literature reviews, one summarising empirical research on the effectiveness of interventions to enhance open disclosure, and a second, broader scoping review, looking at reports of current opinion and practice and wider knowledge. The second phase involved primary qualitative research with the objective of generating new knowledge about UK-based stakeholders’ views on their role in and experiences of open disclosure. Stakeholder interviews were analysed using the framework approach. The third phase synthesised the findings from the first two phases to inform and develop a set of short pragmatic suggestions for NHS trust management, to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of open disclosure.

Results

A total of 610 papers met the inclusion criteria for the broad review. A large body of literature discussed open disclosure from a number of related, but sometimes conflicted, perspectives. Evidential gaps persist and current practice is based largely on expert consensus rather than evidence. There appears to be a tension between the existing pragmatic guidance and the more in-depth critiques of what being consistent and transparent in health care really means. Eleven papers met the inclusion criteria for the more focused review. There was little evidence for the effectiveness of disclosure alone on organisational or individual outcomes or of interventions to promote and support open disclosure. Interviews with stakeholders identified strong support for the basic principle of being honest with patients or relatives when someone was seriously harmed by health care. In practice however, the issues are complex and there is confusion about a number of issues relating to disclosure policies in the UK. The interviews generated insights into the difficulties perceived within health care at individual and institutional levels, in relation to fully implementing the Being Open guidance.

Conclusions

There are several clear strategies that the NHS could learn from to implement and sustain a policy of openness. Literature reviews and stakeholder accounts both identified the potential benefits of a culture that was generally more open (not just retrospectively open about serious harm). Future work could usefully evaluate the impact of disclosure on legal challenges within the NHS, best practice in models of support and training for open disclosure, embedding disclosure conversations in critical incident analysis and disclosure of less serious events.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Interventions for improving patients' trust in doctors and groups of doctors

BACKGROUND

Trust is a fundamental component of the patient-doctor relationship and is associated with increased satisfaction, adherence to treatment, and continuity of care. Our 2006 review found little evidence that interventions improve patients' trust in their doctor; therefore an updated search was required to find out if there is further evidence of the effects of interventions that may improve trust in doctors or groups of doctors.

OBJECTIVES

To update our earlier review assessing the effects of interventions intended to improve patients' trust in doctors or a group of doctors.

SEARCH METHODS

In 2003 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health Star, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, African Trials Register, African Health Anthology, Dissertation Abstracts International and the bibliographies of studies selected for inclusion. We also contacted researchers active in the field. We updated and re-ran the searches on available original databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library issue 2, 2013), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (Ebsco)) as well as Proquest Dissertations and Current Contents for the period 2003 to 18 March 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series of interventions (informative, educational, behavioural, organisational) directed at doctors or patients (or carers) where trust was assessed as a primary or secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Where mentioned, we extracted data on adverse effects. We synthesised data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised controlled trials (including 7 new trials) involving 11,063 patients. These studies were all undertaken in North America, and all but two involved primary care.  As expected, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies.  Interventions were of three main types; three employed additional physician training, four were education for patients and three provided additional information about doctors in terms of financial incentives or consulting style. Additionally, several different measures of trust were employed.The studies gave conflicting results. Trials showing a small but statistically-significant increase in trust included: a trial of physician disclosure of financial incentives; a trial of providing choice of physician based on concordance between patient and physician beliefs about care; a trial of group visits for new inductees into a Health Maintenance Organisation; a trial of training oncologists in communication skills; and a trial of group visits for diabetic patients. However, trust was not affected in a subsequent larger trial of group visits for uninsured people with diabetes, nor with a decision aid for helping choose statins, another trial of disclosure of financial incentives or specifically training doctors to increase trust or cultural competence. There was no evidence of harm from any of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there remains insufficient evidence to conclude that any intervention may increase or decrease trust in doctors. This may be due in part to the sensitivity of trust instruments, and a ceiling effect, as trust in doctors is generally high. It may be that current measures of trust are insufficiently sensitive. Further trials are required to explore the impact of doctors' specific training or the use of a patient-centred or decision-sharing approach on patients' trust, especially in the areas of healthcare provider choice, and induction into healthcare organisation. International trials would be of particular benefit. The review was constrained by the lack of consistency between trust measurements, timeframes and populations.

Ophthalmic malpractice and physician gender: a claims data analysis (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis)

PURPOSE

To analyze and compare malpractice claims rates between male and female ophthalmologists and test the hypothesis that claims rates are equal between the two sexes.

METHODS

A retrospective, cohort study review was made of all claims reported to the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company from January 1990 through December 2008 in which an expense (including indemnity and/or legal defense costs) was paid or reserved. A total of 2,251 claims were examined. Frequency (claims per physician) and severity (indemnity payment, associated expenses and reserves per claim) were analyzed for both male and female ophthalmologists. Frequency and severity data were further stratified by allegation, type of treatment, and injury severity category.

RESULTS

Men were sued 54% more often than females over the period studied (P<.001). Women had lower claims frequencies across all allegations and within the treatment areas of cataract, cornea, and retinal procedures (P<.7). Men had more claims associated with severe injury, including permanent major injury and death (P<.001). The average amount paid in indemnity and expenses was 7% higher for claims against women ($115,303 compared to $107,354 against men).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 20 years of closed claim data reveal male ophthalmologists are significantly more likely than women to have reported malpractice activity. Claims against men were associated with more severe injury to the patient but were slightly less costly overall compared to claims against women. Further study is necessary to understand the reasons underlying gender disparities in malpractice claims rates and whether the observed past differences are predictive of future results.

Institutional disclosure: promise and problems

This study explores rationale for and barriers to the prompt and honest disclosure by healthcare organizations of care-related un-intended harm to patients. Although fear of legal action is frequently put forward as the reason that disclosure programs have been slow to be adopted by the medical community, social and nonjurisprudential explanations also pose challenges. This study identifies multiple facilitators and obstacles that transcend concerns about litigation and limit disclosure of adverse events that result in serious injury or death.

Disclosure-and-resolution programs that include generous compensation offers may prompt a complex patient response

Under "disclosure-and-resolution" programs, health systems disclose adverse events to affected patients and their families; apologize; and, where appropriate, offer compensation. Early adopters of this approach have reported reduced liability costs, but the extent to which these results stem from effective disclosure and apology practices, versus compensation offers, is unknown. Using survey vignettes, we examined the effects of different compensation offers on individuals' responses to disclosures of medical errors compared to explanation and apology alone. Our results show that although two-thirds of these individuals desired compensation offers, increasing the offer amount did not improve key outcomes. Full-compensation offers did not decrease the likelihood of seeking legal advice and increased the likelihood that people perceived the disclosure and apology as motivated by providers' desire to avoid litigation. Hospitals, physicians, and malpractice insurers should consider this complex interplay as they implement similar initiatives. They may benefit from separating disclosure conversations and compensation offers and from excluding physicians from compensation discussions.

A case of error disclosure: a communication privacy management analysis

To better understand the process of disclosing medical errors to patients, this research offers a case analysis using Petronios’s theoretical frame of Communication Privacy Management (CPM). Given the resistance clinicians often feel about error disclosure, insights into the way choices are made by the clinicians in telling patients about the mistake has the potential to address reasons for resistance. Applying the evidenced-based CPM theory, developed over the last 35 years and dedicated to studying disclosure phenomenon, to disclosing medical mistakes potentially has the ability to reshape thinking about the error disclosure process. Using a composite case representing a surgical mistake, analysis based on CPM theory is offered to gain insights into conversational routines and disclosure management choices of revealing a medical error. The results of this analysis show that an underlying assumption of health information ownership by the patient and family can be at odds with the way the clinician tends to control disclosure about the error. In addition, the case analysis illustrates that there are embedded patterns of disclosure that emerge out of conversations the clinician has with the patient and the patient’s family members. These patterns unfold privacy management decisions on the part of the clinician that impact how the patient is told about the error and the way that patients interpret the meaning of the disclosure. These findings suggest the need for a better understanding of how patients manage their private health information in relationship to their expectations for the way they see the clinician caring for or controlling their health information about errors.

(Re)Introducing communication competence to the health professions

Despite the central role that communication skills play in contemporary accounts of effective health care delivery in general, and the communication of medical error specifically, there is no common or consensual core in the health professions regarding the nature of such skills. This lack of consensus reflects, in part, the tendency for disciplines to reinvent concepts and measures without first situating such development in disciplines with more cognate specialization in such concepts. In this essay, an integrative model of communication competence is introduced, along with its theoretical background and rationale. Communication competence is defined as an impression of appropriateness and effectiveness, which is functionally related to individual motivation, knowledge, skills, and contextual facilitators and constraints. Within this conceptualization, error disclosure contexts are utilized to illustrate the heuristic value of the theory, and implications for assessment are suggested. Significance for public healthModels matter, as do the presuppositions that underlie their architecture. Research indicates that judgments of competence moderate outcomes such as satisfaction, trust, understanding, and power-sharing in relationships and in individual encounters. If the outcomes of health care encounters depend on the impression of competence that patients or their family members have of health care professionals, then knowing which specific communicative behaviors contribute to such impressions is not merely important - it is essential. To pursue such a research agenda requires that competence assessment and operationalization becomes better aligned with conceptual assumptions that separate behavioral performance from the judgments of the competence of that performance.

Disclosure of adverse events in the United States and Canada: an update, and a proposed framework for improvement

There is consensus that physicians, health professionals and health care organizations should discuss harm that results from health care delivery (adverse events), including the reasons for harm, with patients and their families. Thought leaders and policy makers in the USA and Canada support this goal. However, there are gaps in both countries between patients and physicians in their attitudes about how errors should be handled, and between disclosure policies and their implementation in practice. This paper reviews the state of disclosure policy and practice in the two countries, and the barriers to full disclosure. Important barriers include fear of consequences, attitudes about disclosure, lack of skill and role models, and lack of peer and institutional support. The paper also describes the problem of the second victim, a corollary of disclosure whereby health care workers are also traumatized by the same events that harm patients. The presence of multiple practical and personal barriers to disclosure suggests the need for a comprehensive solution directed at multiple levels of the health care system, including health departments, institutions, local managers, professional staff, patients and families, and including legal, health system and local institutional support. At the local level, implementation could be based on a translating-evidence-into-practice framework. Applying this framework would involve the formation of teams, training, measurement and identification of local barriers to achieving universal disclosure of adverse events.

Significance for public health

It is inevitable that some patients will be harmed rather than helped by health care. There is consensus that patients and their families must be told about these harmful events. However, there are gaps between patient and physician attitudes about how errors should be handled, and between disclosure policies and their implementation. There are important barriers that impede disclosure, including fear of consequences, attitudes about disclosure, lack of skill, and lack of institutional support. A related problem is that of the second victim, whereby health care workers are traumatized by the same harmful events. This can impair their performance and further compromise safety. The problem is unlikely to be solved by focusing solely on increasing disclosure. A comprehensive solution is needed, directed at multiple levels of the health care system, including health departments, institutions, local managers, professional staff, patients and families, and including legal, health system and local institutional support.

Building bridges: future directions for medical error disclosure research

OBJECTIVE

The disclosure of medical errors has attracted considerable research interest in recent years. However, the research to date has lacked interdisciplinary dialog, making translation of findings into medical practice challenging. This article lays out the disciplinary perspectives of the fields of medicine, ethics, law and communication on medical error disclosure and identifies gaps and tensions that occur at these interdisciplinary boundaries.

METHODS

This article summarizes the discussion of an interdisciplinary error disclosure panel at the 2012 EACH Conference in St. Andrews, Scotland, in light of the current literature across four academic disciplines.

RESULTS

Current medical, ethical, legal and communication perspectives on medical error disclosure are presented and discussed with particular emphasis on the interdisciplinary gaps and tensions.

CONCLUSION

The authors encourage interdisciplinary collaborations that strive for a functional approach to understanding and improving the disclosure of medical errors with the ultimate goal to improve quality and promote safer medical care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interdisciplinary collaborations are needed to reconcile the needs of the stakeholders involved in medical error disclosure. A particular challenge is the effective translation of error disclosure research into practice. Concrete research questions are provided throughout the manuscript to facilitate a resolution of the tensions that currently impede interdisciplinary progress.

The contribution of nurses to incident disclosure: a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

To explore (a) how nurses feel about disclosing patient safety incidents to patients, (b) the current contribution that nurses make to the process of disclosing patient safety incidents to patients and (c) the barriers that nurses report as inhibiting their involvement in disclosure.

DESIGN

A systematic search process was used to identify and select all relevant material. Heterogeneity in study design of the included articles prohibited a meta-analysis and findings were therefore synthesised in a narrative review.

DATA SOURCES

A range of text words, synonyms and subject headings were developed in conjunction with the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and used to undertake a systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; CENTRAL; PsycINFO; Health Management and Information Consortium; CINAHL; ASSIA; Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; Health Technology Assessment Database; Health Systems Evidence; PASCAL; LILACS). Retrieval of studies was restricted to those published after 1980. Further data sources were: websites, grey literature, research in progress databases, hand-searching of relevant journals and author contact.

REVIEW METHODS

The title and abstract of each citation was independently screened by two reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus or consultation with a third person. Full text articles retrieved were further screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria then checked by a second reviewer (YB). Relevant data were extracted and findings were synthesised in a narrative empirical synthesis.

RESULTS

The systematic search and selection process identified 15 publications which included 11 unique studies that emerged from a range of locations. Findings suggest that nurses currently support both physicians and patients through incident disclosure, but may be ill-prepared to disclose incidents independently. Barriers to nurse involvement included a lack of opportunities for education and training, and the multiple and sometimes conflicting roles within nursing.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous potential benefits were identified that may result from nurses having a greater contribution to the disclosure process, but the provision of support and training is essential to overcome the reported barriers faced by nurses internationally.

Developing and administering scripted video vignettes for experimental research of patient-provider communication

OBJECTIVE

Scripted video-vignette studies enable experimental investigation of specific elements of patient-provider communication, separating cause and effect. However, scripted video vignettes are infrequently used to this end. Resultantly, few guidelines are available for their design, development and administration. We aim to suggest guidelines enabling more informed decisions when designing and conducting these studies.

METHODS

Based on the available methodological literature, we discuss methodological considerations when developing and administering scripted video vignettes.

RESULTS

Developing and using valid video vignettes requires: (I) deciding if using video vignettes is appropriate, (II) developing a valid script, (III) designing valid manipulations, (IV) converting the scripted consultation to video, and (V) administering the videos. We provide a first checklist of the methodological considerations in each phase. Advantages and pitfalls of possible approaches are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

No 'gold standard' exists for most methodological issues, as literature testing the consequences of different approaches is lacking. The best approach when developing and implementing video vignettes depends upon the aims and practical limitations of a particular study.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our checklist may serve as a starting point for further study of scripted video vignettes methodology. More detailed methodological reporting would yield new knowledge, thus allowing the research field to progress.

More than words: patients' views on apology and disclosure when things go wrong in cancer care

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines on apology and disclosure after adverse events and errors have been in place for over 5 years. This study examines whether patients consider recommended responses to be appropriate and desirable, and whether clinicians' actions after adverse events are consistent with recommendations.

METHODS

Patients who believed that something had gone wrong during their cancer care were identified. During in-depth interviews, patients described the event, clinicians' responses, and their reactions.

RESULTS

78 patients were interviewed. Patients' valued apology and expressions of remorse, empathy and caring, explanation, acknowledgement of responsibility, and efforts to prevent recurrences, but these key elements were often missing. For many patients, actions and evidence of clinician learning were most important.

CONCLUSION

Patients' reports of apology and disclosure when they believe something has gone wrong in their care suggest that clinicians' responses continue to fall short of expectations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians preparing to talk with patients after an adverse event or medical error should be aware that patients expect their actions to be congruent with their words of apology and caring. Healthcare systems need to support clinicians throughout the disclosure process, and facilitate both system and individual learning to prevent recurrences.

The flaws in state 'apology' and 'disclosure' laws dilute their intended impact on malpractice suits

Apologies are rare in the medical world, where health care providers fear that admissions of guilt or expressions of regret could be used by plaintiffs in malpractice lawsuits. Nevertheless, some states are moving toward giving health care providers legal protection so that they feel free to apologize to patients for a medical mistake. Advocates believe that these laws are beneficial for patients and providers. However, our analysis of "apology" and "disclosure" laws in thirty-four states and the District of Columbia finds that most of the laws have major shortcomings. These may actually discourage comprehensive disclosures and apologies and weaken the laws' impact on malpractice suits. Many could be resolved by improved statutory design and communication of new legal requirements and protections.

Parents' perceptions of medical errors

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to explore parents' experiences related to events which they believed to be medical errors in their child's care.

METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with parents who believed their child had experienced a medical error; responses were analyzed using qualitative methods.

RESULTS

In 35 interviews, parents reported a variety of events that they believed to be errors. They described physical harm, emotional distress, life disruptions, changes in behavior, and damage to the relationship with the provider as a result of these events. Most parents felt that they had received no explanation of what had happened, no acknowledgement of the impact of the event, no apology and no acceptance of responsibility by a provider. Parents wanted providers to offer these responses, to express caring for the patient and to feel remorse. They also wanted to know that steps would be taken to prevent recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived medical errors can impact both the patient and the family in many ways. We recommend that providers acknowledge the full impact of a perceived error and tailor their response to meet the specific needs of the patient and family.

Patient reactions to personalized medicine vignettes: an experimental design

PURPOSE

Translational investigation on personalized medicine is in its infancy. Exploratory studies reveal attitudinal barriers to "race-based medicine" and cautious optimism regarding genetically personalized medicine. This study describes patient responses to hypothetical conventional, race-based, or genetically personalized medicine prescriptions.

METHODS

Three hundred eighty-seven participants (mean age = 47 years; 46% white) recruited from a Baltimore outpatient center were randomized to this vignette-based experimental study. They were asked to imagine a doctor diagnosing a condition and prescribing them one of three medications. The outcomes are emotional response to vignette, belief in vignette medication efficacy, experience of respect, trust in the vignette physician, and adherence intention.

RESULTS

Race-based medicine vignettes were appraised more negatively than conventional vignettes across the board (Cohen's d = -0.51-0.57-0.64, P < 0.001). Participants rated genetically personalized comparably with conventional medicine (-0.14-0.15-0.17, P = 0.47), with the exception of reduced adherence intention to genetically personalized medicine (Cohen's d = -0.38-0.41-0.44, P = 0.009). This relative reluctance to take genetically personalized medicine was pronounced for racial minorities (Cohen's d = -0.38-0.31-0.25, P = 0.02) and was related to trust in the vignette physician (change in R = 0.23, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a relative reluctance to embrace personalized medicine technology, especially among racial minorities, and highlights enhancement of adherence through improved doctor- patient relationships.

A new method for the assessment of patient safety competencies during a medical school clerkship using an objective structured clinical examination

INTRODUCTION

Patient safety is seldom assessed using objective evaluations during undergraduate medical education.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of fifth-year medical students using an objective structured clinical examination focused on patient safety after implementation of an interactive program based on adverse events recognition and disclosure.

METHODS

In 2007, a patient safety program was implemented in the internal medicine clerkship of our hospital. The program focused on human error theory, epidemiology of incidents, adverse events, and disclosure. Upon completion of the program, students completed an objective structured clinical examination with five stations and standardized patients. One station focused on patient safety issues, including medical error recognition/disclosure, the patient-physician relationship and humanism issues. A standardized checklist was completed by each standardized patient to assess the performance of each student. The student's global performance at each station and performance in the domains of medical error, the patient-physician relationship and humanism were determined. The correlations between the student performances in these three domains were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 95 students participated in the objective structured clinical examination. The mean global score at the patient safety station was 87.59 ± 1.24 points. Students' performance in the medical error domain was significantly lower than their performance on patient-physician relationship and humanistic issues. Less than 60% of students (n = 54) offered the simulated patient an apology after a medical error occurred. A significant correlation was found between scores obtained in the medical error domains and scores related to both the patient-physician relationship and humanistic domains.

CONCLUSIONS

An objective structured clinical examination is a useful tool to evaluate patient safety competencies during the medical student clerkship.