How psychotherapists handle treatment errors -- an ethical analysis

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.

Initiating and maintaining clinical ethics support in psychiatry. Ten tasks and challenges – And how to meet them

Initiating clinical ethics support in psychiatry (CESiP) and maintaining its continuity appear to be easy. This is contradicted by the observed delay or lack of CESiP, e.g. ethics consultation. On the basis of a published literature search and the discussion of practical experiences over 2.5 years 10 tasks and relating challenges of initiating and maintaining CESiP are formulated and illustrated by examples. Referral to experiences is grounded on the systematic documentation of ca. 100 CESiP activities. The tasks and challenges illustrate how CESiP was initiated and maintained in child and adolescent, adult and forensic psychiatry. Each example is followed by a “rule of thumb” that was found useful in our centre. Discussion: Suggestions I–III are of organisational nature, IV–X have explicit ethical content concerning the ethos or professionalism of the ethics consultant and CES practice. Their realisation requires a minimum of stability of CESiP and considerable consultancy experience.